ML062550214

E-Mail from Teator to Orr, Hub Meeting/New Issue

ML062550214
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	12/22/2003
From:	Teator J NRC/OI
To:	Dan Orr NRC Region 1
References
BL-88-008, FOIA/PA-2005-0194
Download: ML062550214 (1)

Text

From: Jeffrey Teator To: Daniel Orr Date: 12/22/03 7:22AM

Subject:

Fwd: Re: hub meetinglnew issue Scott, let's talk about this before we ask Dan to contac'Jf

>>> Daniel Drr12119103 01:37PM >>

Scott, I did some research through SAP. The one issue that involves all four valves, the four valves are the parallel BIT Inlet and outlet MOVs is a DOP issue generated from NRC Bulletin 88-08. The issue involved thermal stratification and stresses to RCS piping past single isolation valves. Salem used to maintain only one isolation at the BIT outlet. The cold leg injection lines were identified as susceptible if the BIT outlet valves leaked by. Looks like Salem 2 was modified first, not sure when. Salem 1 looks like it was modified in Fall 2002 outage. In any case, all four BIT valves are now maintained closed for both units. I verified this in the main control room for both units.

I did see a notification that involved a PM deferral for leak testing the unit 2 BIT outlet valves. This requirement still exists even with the DOP that double isolates charging from RCS. It was interesting in the notification that a statement was made that the ops manager agreed with engineering and licensing that the PM could be deferred for the outage.. The notification was from February of 2002. The PM was deferred to the outage, which would have been spring 2002. Interesting. Oh by the way, peforming this test in mode 1 would have placed the unit Ina I hour shutdown statement Bottomline is that I think we need to go back to nd understand this issue(s)more clearly.

For now, my sense is that the leak test should have b~een 66-pleted in Spring 2002, or if it Involved the DOP issue, both units are complete.

I can go to if you like.

>>> Scott Barber 12/19/03 07:40AM >>>>

InforMaUOR in thIs recrd Wandlee i!' accordance w~it th r o nfrato edo A~,exemptions teFedmo n~Mto F 6;