LR-N14-0162, Submittal of Relief Request Associated with the Third Ten-Year Lnservice Inspection (ISI) Interval

From kanterella
Revision as of 19:45, 5 February 2020 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Submittal of Relief Request Associated with the Third Ten-Year Lnservice Inspection (ISI) Interval
ML14211A589
Person / Time
Site: Salem PSEG icon.png
Issue date: 07/30/2014
From: Duke P
Public Service Enterprise Group
To:
Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
LR-N14-0162
Download: ML14211A589 (16)
v • d • e


Text

PSEG Nuclear LLC P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038-0236 I>SEG JUL 3 0 2014 Nucl1!ar JL(;

10 CFR 50.55a LR-N14-0162 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 Salem G enerating Station Unit 2 Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-75 NRC Docket No. 50-311

Subject:

Submittal of Relief Request Associated with the Third Ten-Year lnservice Inspection (lSI) Interval In accordance with 10 CFR 50. 55a, "codes and standards, " paragraph (g)(5)(iii), PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG) hereby requests NRC approval of the attached request for the third 1 0-year lSI interval for Salem G enerating Station Unit 2, which ended on November 27, 2013. This request addresses examination limitations for exams performed in accordance with the requirements of American Society of Mechanical Engineering (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI for Class 1 and 2 components.

There are no regulatory commitments contained within this letter.

Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Brian Thomas at 856-339-2022.

Sincerely, GcWL f-_fLO Paul R. Duke, Jr Manager - Licensing

\

PSEG Nuclear LLC

JUl SO 2014 LR-N14-0162 10 CFR 50. 55a Page 2

Enclosure:

10 CFR 50.55a Relief Request S2-13R-132 cc: W. Dean, Administrator, Region I, NRC NRC Senior Resident Inspector, Salem J. Lamb, Project Manager, Salem, USNRC P. Mulligan, Manager IV, NJBNE (w/o attachment)

L. Marabella, Corporate Commitment Tracking Coordinator (w/o attachment)

T. Cachaza, Salem Commitment Tracking Coordinator (w/o attachment)

LR-N14-0162 Enclosure 1 10 CFR 50.55a Relief Request S2-13R-132 1

Salem Nuclear G enerating Station, Unit 2 Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-75 NRC Docket No. 50-311 1 0 CFR 50.55a Relief Request Number S2-13R-132 Relief Request in Accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii) lnservice Inspection Impracticality NOTE:

Salem Unit 2- Third Ten-Year lnterval lnservice Inspection (lSI) examinations were conducted between November 27, 2003 (start) and November 27, 2013 (end). There were six refueling outages performed during this time frame that included RF0-14 through RF0-19.

1. ASME Code Components Affected Code Class 1 and 2

Reference:

IWB-2500, IWC-2500 Code Case N-578-1 Table -2500 Code Case N-460 Examination Categories: 8-8, C-A, C-8, R-A Item Numbers: See Table 1

Description:

See Table 1 Component Number: See Table 1

2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda The code of record for the Salem Unit 2 Third Ten-Year lSI Program Interval is American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, "Rules for lnservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components, " 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda, herein after referred to as the Code.

During the Third Interval, PSEG implemented a Risk-Informed lnservice Inspection (RISI) program based on Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Topical Report TR-112657, Rev. 8-A and Code Case N-578-1, "Risk-Informed Requirements for Class 1, 2, or 3 Piping, Method 8, " as 2

specified by TR-112657. The RISI program was approved by the NRC via Reference 1.

3. Applicable Code Requirement

For weld s, other than those in the RISI program, the required examination volume is specified in figures that are referenced by the Examination Category and Item Number in Table IWB-2500-1 for Class 1 and Table IWC-2500-1 for Class 2 of the Code.

For welds that are within the RISI program, the required examination volume is specified in Section 4 of EPRI TR-112657 ( Reference 4) specific to the degradation mechanism.

Additionally, PSEG has implemented ASME Section XI Code Case N-460, "Alternative Examination Coverage for Class 1 and Class 2 welds,Section XI Division 1. " Code Case N-460 states in part, "when the entire examination volume or area cannot be examined due to interference by another component or part geometry, a reduction in examination coverage on any Class 1 or Class 2 weld may be accepted provided the reduction in coverage for that weld is less than 1 0%. " ASME Code Case N-460 is approved for use by the NRC in Regulatory G uide ( RG ) 1. 147, lnservice Inspection Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section XI, Division 1, and in EPRI TR-112657 for use with welds in the RISI program.

The examination categories for this relief request are B-B, C-A, C-B, and R-A. The applicable requirements are as follows:

A. Examination Category B-B, Pressure Retaining Welds Other Than Reactor Vessels-Inspection Program B Code Requirement: Item Number 82.11 applies to the Pressurizer Shell to Head Circumferential weld and requires essentially 100%

volumetric examination of weld length as defined by Table IWB-2500-1 and Figure IWB-2500-1.

B. Examination Category C-A, Pressure Retaining Welds in Pressure Vessels Code Requirement: Item Number C1.20 includes head circumferential welds and requires essentially 100% volumetric examination as defined by Figure IWC-2500-1.

C. Examination Category C-B, Pressure Retaining Nozzle Welds in Vessels 3

Code Requirement: Item Number C2.21 applies to nozzle-to-shell or nozzle to head welds and requires both surface and volumetric examinations. The requirements are defined by Figure IWC-2500-4(b) and include only those piping runs selected for examination under Examination Category C-F.

D. Examination Category R-A, Risk Informed Piping Examinations EPRI TR-112657, Rev B-A, Requirements:

  • For piping welds less than NPS 4 with a degradation mechanism of thermal fatigue (N-578-1, Item Number R1.11 ),

the examination volume is defined in Figure 4-1.

  • For piping welds NPS 4 or larger with a degradation mechanism of thermal fatigue (N-578-1, Item Number R1.11), the examination volume is defined in Figure 4-2.
  • For piping welds NPS 4 or larger with a degradation mechanism of lntergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking (IGSCC) (N-578-1, Item Number R1.16), the examination volume is defined in Figure 4-11.
4. Basis for Relief:

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50. 55a(g)(5)(iii), relief is requested from examining essentially 100% (>90%) of the volume or surface required by the Code for welds other than those in the RISI program, and from examining essentially 100% (> 90%) of the alternative volumes required by EPRI TR-112657 for welds in the RISI program. Table 1 identifies the specific examinations that do not meet the examination requirements described in this relief request including a description of the limitation. Attachment A provides ad ditional descriptive details (data reports, sketches, illustrations, and/or drawings) for these components. The welds and examination areas subject of this request have been examined to the "extent practical" within the limitations of design, geometry and materials of construction.

The welds were volumetrically examined by radiography and/or surface examination during fabrication, in accordance with applicable construction/fabrication codes providing adequate assurance for their structural integrity prior to plant operation. In addition, the components, identified in Table 1, are visually examined for leakage in accordance with the Code during each refuel outage for Class 1 and once during each period for Class 2.

4

A. Examination Category BB, Pressure Retaining Welds in Vessels Other Than Reactor Vessels - Inspection Program B Table 1 identifies specific information, description of limitation, and figures from the examination report with an explanation of the limitation(s) encountered.

Basis for Relief:

The Pressurizer Shell to Upper head weld (Examination Category B-B, Item Number B2.11) described in Table 1 was examined to the extent practical in accordance with ASME Section V, Article 4 using the required Supplements of ASME Section XI, Appendix I as defined in Table 120001 of the Code.

Impracticality Compliance: Obtaining volumetric Code required coverage for weld 2PZR-CIRC-DUH is impractical due to portions of the weld being obscured at numerous locations around the Pressurizer by the permanently installed support ring and three weld pads.

Burden Caused by Compliance: To increase volumetric examination coverage, the insulation support ring would require a design modification.

Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use: No alternative provisions are practical for the subject component. Examinations were performed to the maximum extent practical with no recordable indications.

The subject components have been subjected to visual leakage examinations each refueling outage. This provides additional assurance that the structural integrity of the subject components is maintained.

B. Examination Category C-A, Pressure Retaining Welds in Pressure Vessels Table 1 identifies specific information, description of limitation, and figure from the examination reports with an explanation of the limitation( s) encountered.

Basis for Relief:

The two Examination Category C-A welds described in table 1 were examined to the extent practical in accordance with ASME Section 5

XI, Appendix Ill using the required Supplements of Appendix I, as defined in Table 1-2000-1 of the Code.

Impracticality Compliance: Obtaining Code required coverage for welds 2-CVCT-2 and 2-BIT-A is impractical due to portions of each weld being obscured by support legs that are welded to the vessel shell. The 2-BIT-A required coverage is also impacted by two thermowells.

Burden Caused by Compliance: To increase examination coverage, the support connections for the two vessels would require a design modification.

Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use: No alternative provisions are practical for the subject component. Examinations were performed to the maximum extent practical with no rejectable indications.

The subject components have been subjected to periodic visual leakage examinations. This provides additional assurance that the structural integrity of the subject components is maintained.

C. Examination Category C-B, Pressure Retaining Nozzle Welds in Vessels Table 1 identifies specific information, description of limitation, and figures from the examination report with an explanation of the limitation( s) encountered.

Basis for Relief:

Impracticality Compliance: The 2-BIT-2 nozzle-to-vessel weld was volumetrically examined to the extent practical in accordance with ASME Section V, Article 4 using the required Supplements of ASME Section XI, Appendix I as defined in Table 1-2000-1 of the Code. Obtaining Code required volumetric coverage is impractical for weld 2-BIT-2 due to weld crown and nozzle configuration.

Burden Caused by Compliance: To increase volumetric examination coverage, the head-to-nozzle configuration would require an altered configuration and the weld crown reduction.

Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use: No alternative provisions are practical for the subject component. Examinations were performed to the maximum extent practical with no recordable indications.

6

The subject components have been subjected to periodic visual leakage examinations. This provides additional assurance that the structural integrity of the subject component is maintained.

The 2-BIT-2 nozzle-to-vessel weld also required a magnetic particle examination and was examined in accordance with ASME Section V, article 7. The examination achieved 100% coverage with acceptable exam results.

D. Examination Category R-A Risk Informed Piping Examinations Table 1 identifies specific component information, description of limitation, and a figure for the examination report with an explanation of the limitation(s) encountered.

Basis for Relief:

PSEG has implemented Appendix VIII, "Performance Demonstration for Ultrasonic Examination Systems, " of the ASME Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda in accordance with the schedule specified in 10 CFR

50. 55a(g)(6)(ii)(C)(1). With the implementation of Appendix VIII, volumes that cannot be examined within the limits of qualification are considered not examined. The achieved coverage provided in Table 1 is based on the volume examined by Appendix VIII qualified techniques.

Impracticality Compliance: Obtaining Code required coverage is impractical for five Category R-A welds listed in Table 1 due to component configurations and/or acoustical material properties.

Burden Caused by Compliance: To increase volumetric examination coverage would require design modification and the design, fabrication and installation of special fittings.

Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use: Examinations on the R-A welds were performed to the maximum extent practical with no rejectable indications. Typically when R-A weld examination limitations are identified as part of the RISI implementation a weld examination substitution is selected and scheduled as applicable.

During the implementation of the Third lSI interval there were twenty one weld examinations that were identified as limited examinations. Of these twenty one welds only five of these welds were not successfully substituted with additional welds and now require relief.

7

During the development of the Salem Unit 2 Fourth lSI interval RISI program, these five limited R-A weld examinations have been substituted. However the living RISI program periodic updates may cause new piping weld selections not previously examined to be selected. In these new situations, Salem intends to prioritize examination coverage during the selection of these examination locations.

The five R-A welds listed in Table 1 were found to have weld examination limitations with no suitable weld substitution examination successfully performed without additional limitations.

These five limited weld examinations fall into three different R-A groups.

The first group of welds are in the Chemical and Volume Control system and the group includes a total of five class 1 welds with R-A item No. R1.11 and are Risk Category 2 requiring 25% examination sample (1.25 welds). Of the five welds, two were originally selected but both were found during examination to be limited, one additional weld was added as a substitution weld although this weld examination also resulted in examination limitations. Of the two remaining non selected welds in this weld group, both have been selected for examination during the Fourth lSI interval and are not expected to have limited examination coverage.

The second group of welds are in the Safety Injection system and include a total of two class 1 welds with R-A item No. R1.11 and are Risk Category 5 requiring 10% examination sample (0.2 welds).

The one weld selected for examination in the Third lSI interval resulted in 0% coverage. This examination was scheduled during the last outage of the Third lSI interval and a suitable substitution weld was not able to be scheduled. The only remaining weld in this group is currently selected in the first outage of the Fourth lSI interval to substitute this weld.

The third group of welds are in the Safety Injection system and includes a total of twenty three class 1 welds with R-A item No.

R1.16 and are Risk Category 5 requiring 10% examination sample (2. 3 welds). Three welds were selected for examination and two of the three examinations resulted in 50% weld examination coverage.

Two additional weld examination substitutions have been selected and are scheduled for examination during the Fourth lSI interval and are not expected to have limited examination coverage.

8

The subject class 1 components have been subjected to visual leakage examinations after the completion of each refueling outage. This provides additional assurance that the structural integrity of the subject components was maintained.

Summary of Third Interval Class 1 and 2 piping welds included in the overall RISI program.

R-A Class 1 elements (welds) = 1387 R-A Class 2 elements (welds) = 1628 Total R-A Class 1 and 2 elements (welds)= 3 015 Required R-A Class 1 examinations= 118 Required R-A Class 2 examinations= 52 Total required R-A examinations= 170 Total R-A weld examinations performed= 202 R-A weld summary is included in table 2

5. Duration of Proposed Alternative This relief is applicable to the Third Ten-Year Inspection Interval for Salem Unit 2 Generating Station, which ended on November 27, 2013.
6. Precedents As part of the submission of the Salem 2 Second 1 0-year interval lSI program plan, associated relief requests were submitted with the exception of Examination Category R-A, which was not implemented until the Second Interval, Third Period, Second Outage (RF0-13). Relief was granted for Salem 2 Second 1 0-year interval for Category B-B component 2-PZRCIRC DUH, Category C-A components 2-CVCT-2, and 2-BIT-A, and Category C-B component 2-BIT-2 (References 2 and 3).
7. References
1. "Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 2, Extension of Risk Informed lnservice Inspection Applicability (TAC No. MC3854),"

dated April 1, 2005

2. "Evaluation of the Second Ten-Year Interval Inspection Program Plan and Associated Requests for Relief for Salem Generating Station, Unit 2 (TAC No. M83316)," dated October 23, 1995.

9

3. "Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 2 - Evaluation of Relief Requests S2-12-RR-B01 and S2-12-RR-C01 (TAG Nos. MD5977 and MD5978)," dated June 2, 2008.
4. EPRI TR-112657, Revised Risk-Informed lnservice Inspection Evaluation Procedure, Revision B-A
5. American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, "Rules for lnservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components", 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 10

Table 1 Salem 2 Nuclear Generating Station Relief Request# S2-13R-132 Third lnterval lnservice Inspection Examination Limitations scans were performed using a 45° and 60° shear wave. Circumferential scans were performed using a 45° and 60° shear wave. A oo longitudinal wave exam was also performed. The 45°axial obtained 58.76% and the 60o axial scan obtained 47.84% of required coverage. The 45° circumferential scans obtained 68.64% and the 60° circumferential scans obtained 68.64% of required

  • coverage. The oo longitudinal wave obtained 68.54% of required coverage. The combined total coverage for all scans achieved 62.5% of the required coverage. The total weld length is 290".

vamination was limited due to the following: Limitation 1 was of 168.5" of weld length that the volume of coverage was effected by a permanently installed insulation support ring; Limitation 2 was area of 13" of weld length that the volume of coverage was effected by three weld pads; Limitation 3 was an area of 14" of weld length that the volume of coverage was effected by additional m>'n<>ntlv installed insulation support; and Limitation 4 was an area of 7" of weld length that the volume of coverage was effected by additional permanently installed insulation support.

SHELL TO LOWER HEAD Shell and Head - Stainless 2-CVCT-2 (CVC TANK) I Steel lWC-2500-1 A-2 ial scans were performed using a 45° and 60° shear wave. Circumferential scans were performed using a 45° shear wave. The 45°axial scan obtained 81.4%, and the 60° axial scan obtained

.4% of code required coverage. The 45°circumferential scan obtained 81.4% of code required coverage. The combined total coverage for all scans achieved 81.4% of the code required coverage.

total weld length is 285". A total of 53.5" was inaccessible for examination due to four welded supports that covered 13.5" of weld for each of three supports and 13" for one support. The 231.5" weld that was accessible was scanned from both sides of the weld in both the axial and circumferential directions for full Code coverage.

715180 2-BlT-A LOWER HEAD (BIT) IWC-2500-1 A-3 Axial scans were performed using a 45° and 60° shear wave and a oo longitudinal wave. Circumferential scans were performed using a 45° and 60° shear wave. The 45oaxial scan obtained 87%

and the 60" axial scan obtained 87% of required coverage. The 45" circumferential scans obtained 87% and the 60° circumferential scans obtained 87% of required coverage. The oo longitudinal wave obtained 87% of required coverage. The combined total coverage for all scans achieved 87% of the required coverage. The total weld length is 165". Examination was limited due to the following: a total of 6" was inaccessible for examination due to two thermowells at oo and 180°; and four support legs restricting an 8" area of weld at each leg location for a total of 32" of weld length.

715160 12-BIT-2 (UPPER IWC-2500-4 [b] A-4 scans were performed using a 45" and 60 shear wave. Circumferential scans were performed using a 45° and 60° shear wave and a oo longitudinal wave. The 45°axial scan obtained 50% and axial scan obtained 50% of code required coverage. The 45° circumferential obtained 1 00% and 60° circumferential obtained 100% of code required coverage. The oo circumferential wave obtained 12.50% of required coverage. The combined total coverage for all scans achieved 62.5% of the required coverage. Scanning cannot be performed from the nozzle side of 2-BIT-2 due to the nozzle weld configuration. Weld crown reduction on the vessel side of the weld could not be performed to improve contact as it would compromise the original outer radius or tapered fillet portion of the weld. A code required surface MT exam was also performed at time of inspection that achieved 100% code required coverage with acceptable exam results.

Page 1 of2

Table 1 Salem 2 Nuclear Generating Station Relief Request# S2-13R-132 Third lnterval lnservice Inspection Examination Limitations Axial scans were performed using a 45° and 70° shear wave. Circumferential scans were performed using a 45° and 70° shear wave. The 45°axial scan obtained 0% upstream and 100%

downstream of required coverage. The 70° axial scan obtained 0% upstream and 1 00% downstream of required coverage. The 45° circumferential scan obtained 0% upstream and 1 00%

downstream of required coverage. The 70° circumferential scan obtained 0% upstream and 1 00% downstream of required coverage. The combined total coverage for all scans achieved 50% of the required coverage. The total weld length is 9.42". A total of 9.42" was inaccessible for examination due to no scanning ability from the upstream side of the weld due to obstruction by the uration of the valve.

Pipe Stainless Steal, 3-CV-1 231 - 1 6 VALVE 2CV78 T O PIPE Valve Stainless Steel ial scans were performed using a 45° and 70° shear wave. Circumferential scans were performed using a 45° and 70° shear wave. A oo longitudinal wave exam was also performed. The 45° scan obtained 0% upstream and 1 00% downstream, and the 70° axial scan obtained 0% upstream and 1 00% downstream of code required coverage. The 45° circumferential scan obtained 0%

upstream and 1 00% downstream and the 70° circumferential scan obtained 0% upstream and 1 00% downstream of code required coverage. The oo longitudinal wave obtained 0% upstream and 100% downstream of required coverage. The combined total coverage for all scans achieved 50% of the code required coverage due to no scanning ability from the upstream side of the weld.

side of weld is obstructed bv the confiauration of the valve.

TR- 1 1 2657 1 0-SJ-1 241 - 1 4 TEE T O PIPE Stainless Steel, R-A R 1 . 1 6-5 UT 50.0% RF0- 1 5 A-7 Fig. 4-1 1 Stainless Steel were performed using a 45° and 60° shear wave and a 60° longitudinal wave. Circumferential scans were performed using a 45° and 60° shear wave. The 45° shear wave axial scan 0% upstream and 1 00% downstream and the 60 shear wave axial scan obtained 0% upstream and 1 00% downstream of required coverage. The 60° longitudinal wave obtained 0%

upstream and 1 00% downstream of required coverage. The 45° circumferential scans obtained 0% upstream and 100% downstream, and the 60° circumferential scans obtained 0% upstream and 100% downstream of required coverage. The combined total coverage for all scans achieved 50% of the code required coverage. The total weld length is 34". The limitations are due to scanning the tee side of the weld. The weld is obstructed due to the acoustic properties of the cast stainless steel tee.

Tee Cast austenitic TR- 1 1 2657 1 0-SJ-1231- 1 4 TEE T O VALVE (23SJ56) R-A R 1 . 1 1 -5 UT 0.0% RF0-1 9 A-8 Fig. 4-2 were pertormeo pnor to 1-<t-U-1 8. No t::xaminatJon was .

to scan from the upstream tee side of the weld due to the acoustic properties of the cast stainless TR-1 1 2657 1 0-SJ-1 2 1 1 - 1 5 TEE T O PIPE R-A R1.1 6-5 UT 50.0% RF0-1 5 A-9 Fig. 4-1 1 were performed using a 45° and 60° shear wave and a 60° longitudinal wave. Circumferential scans were performed using a 45° and 60° shear wave. The 45°axial scan obtained 0%

and 1 00% downstream, and the 60° axial scan obtained 0% upstream and 1 00% downstream of required coverage. The 60° longitudinal wave obtained 0% upstream and 1 00%

of code required coverage. The 45° circumferential scans obtained 0% upstream and 1 00% downstream, and the 60° circumferential scans obtained 0% upstream and 1 00%

downstream of code required coverage. The combined total coverage for all scans achieved 50% of the code required coverage. The total weld length is 34". The limitations are due to scanning from the tee side of the weld. This is obstructed due to the acoustic properties of the cast stainless steel tee.

Page2 of2

Table 2 Salem 2 Nuclear Generating Station Relief Request S2-13R-132 Third lntervallnservice Inspection R*A Examination Summary Risl< Degradation Total Percent Required Total Exams Limited Relief Systemll Category Item No. Mechanism# Class Welds Required Exams Complete Exams Needed AF 5 R1.11 TT 2 24 10% 3 5 BF 5 R1.11 TT,TASCS 2 30 10% 3 6 1 NO BF 6 R1.20 None 2 51 0% 0 cs 2 R1.19 ECSCC 2 21 25% 6 6 cs 4 R1.20 None 2 75 10% 8 8 cs 5 R1.16 IGSCC, ECSCC 2 8 10% 1 1 cs 6 R1.20 None 2 40 0% 0 eve 2 R1.11 TASCS, TT 1 5 25% 2 3 3 YES eve 2 R1.11 TT 1 4 25% 1 1 eve 4 R1.20 None 1,2 98 10% 10 10 eve 5 R1.11 TT 1 27 10% 3 3 eve 5 R1.19 ECSCC 2 12 10% 2 2 eve 6 R1.20 None 1,2 436 0% 0 eve 7 R1.20 None 1 42 0% 0 MS 6 R1.20 None 2 237 0% 0 RC 2 R1.11 TASCS, TT 1 19 25% 5 5 RC 2 R1.11 TT 1 3 25% 1 2 1 NO RC 4 R1.20 None 1 234 10% *(24)43 48 5 NO RC 6 R1.16 IGSCC 2 6 0% 0 RC 6 R1.19 ECSCC 2 1 0% 0 RC 7 R1.20 None 1,2 85 0% 0 RHR 2 R1.11 TASCS 1,2 18 25% 5 8 1 NO RHR 2 R1.19 ECSCC 2 3 25% 1 1 RHR 4 R1.20 None 1,2 227 10% *(23)26 30 3 NO RHR 5 R1.19 ECSCC 2 2 10% 1 1 RHR 5 R1.16 IGSCC 1 8 10% 1 1 RHR 6 R1.20 None 1,2 130 0% 0 RHR 7 R1.20 None 2 20 0% 0 SJ 2 R1.11 TASCS, TT 1 12 25% 3 3 SJ 2 R1.11 TT 1 19 25% 5 6 1 NO SJ 2 R1.19 ECSCC 1 8 25% 2 4 SJ 4 R1.20 None 1,2 266 10% **27 30 2 NO SJ 5 R1.11 TT, IGSCC 1 2 10% 1 1 1 YES SJ 5 R1.16 IGSCC 1 23 10% 3 3 2 YES SJ 6 R1.20 None 1,2 578 0% **0 5 1 NO SJ 6 R1.11 TT, IGSCC 1 12 0% 0 SJ 7 R1.20 None 1 165 0% 0 sw 4 R1.20 None 2 64 10% 7 9 TOTALS 3015 170 202 21 5

  • 22 additional Class 1 Category 4 welds were selected for examination to ensure that Class 1 examinations were not significantly less than 10%.
    • 5 class 1 welds were moved from Category 4 to 6 during Risk Informed Program Period update after examinations were complete.

1 of 2

Table 2 Salem 2 Nuclear Generating Station Relief Request S2-13R-132

  1. Acronyms defined:

AF-Auxiliary Feedwater System BF-Steam Generator Feedwater system CS-Containment Spray System CC -Component Cooling System CVC- Chemical and Volume Control System ECSCC-External Chloride Stress Corrosion Cracking IGSCC - lntergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking MS-Main Steam System PWSCC-Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking RC -Reactor Coolant System RHR-Residual Heat Removal System SJ -Safety Injection System SW - Service Water System TASCS-Thermal Stratification TT-Thermal Transients 2 of2

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=LR-N14-0162,_Submittal_of_Relief_Request_Associated_with_the_Third_Ten-Year_Lnservice_Inspection_(ISI)_Interval&oldid=2451857"