ML102940091
| ML102940091 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 05/06/2010 |
| From: | Conte R Division of Nuclear Materials Safety I |
| To: | David Alley, Gray H, Hardies R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2010-0334 | |
| Download: ML102940091 (2) | |
Text
.1 Caponiti, Kathleen From:
Conte, Richard V_
Sent:
Thursday, May d6, 2610 9:30 AM To:
Alley, David; Gray, Harold; Hardies, Robert; OHara, Timothy
Subject:
FW: Salem AFW summary.doc Attachments:
Salem AFW summary (2).doc Gentlemen, Tim is back from the site and closest to the issue. Please review Tim and let me know what you send back.
Harold needs to move onto other things.
From: Alley, David Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 8:39 AM To: Conte, Richard; Gray, Harold Cc: Hardies, Robert
Subject:
FW: Salem AFW summary.doc Rich, Harold, I am in the office today. Bob Hardies is working at home. We are working on refining a summary of events/facts about the piping at Salem. Current version is attached. Your input would be appreciated. See Bob and my comments below. This may not be the most efficient way to write a document but when has efficiency ever substituted for brute force?
My phone is 301-415-2178 if you want to discuss.
Dave From: Hardies, Robert Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 8:29 AM To: Alley, David
Subject:
RE: Salem AFW summary.doc I don't want to just forward your comments, but can you engage with Harold and Richard about those two items?
Maybe you can just forward this, attach the summary, and delete any part of the email you want to delete before you press send:
Harold and Richard, We are making a one page chronology of the Salem event and would like you to look at our summary and verify that everything is correct. In particular, we would like you to modify the description of the absence or deterioration of the coating so that it appropriately reflects that the coating was either always absent or was degraded so much as to be no longer present. Second, it is not clear whether the piping system was originally over rated on a piping system that had a combination of pumps and valves that would not pressurize it above 1275 psi, or whether the licensee had to take administrative actions to limit the system pressure to remain below the new design rating of 1275 psi.
From: Alley, David k Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 8:19 AM To: Hardies, Robert
Subject:
RE: Salem AFW summary.doc
- Bob, 1
V We can finalize this Monday. A couple comments now.
Paragraph 1. My conversations with Rich Conte and Howard Gray indicated that the system had never been operated above 1275 as opposed to it could not be operated at greater pressure. If we really think it is important to distinguish, we will need to inquire further.
Item 2 of the "licensee did". I got two "quotes" from Rich and Howard. First was that inspections found "no evidence of coating". Second was applicant stated that corrosion was due to "absence or improper application of specified coating. I, too, heard conflicting stories initially about presence or absence of coating but at this point I don't have a problem with saying that visual inspections did not detect any coating.
Last item of "the licensee did". The licensee cut the pipe into something like 6' lengths. Harold looked at the end of each and is said that, based on what he saw, the pipe was structurally sound on the day it was removed from service. The region doesn't want to lose sight of the concept that the answer would likely have been different if the pipe had not been inspected for another 15 years. Once I mentioned the significance of the absence of coating and general corrosion as opposed to localized corrosion resulting from localized coating failure, Harold said that in one of the failures at Oyster creek, there had been a previous inspection of the pipe in which coating was removed to permit the inspection and then a different coating was reapplied prior to reburial. This reapplied coating failed completely. Although we should confirm this, it is my impression that this coating was applied to all 360 degrees of the pipe. Corrosion could, therefore, cause a complete severing of the pipe.
Anyway, more on Monday. Michele has the version upon which you did the editing. She is expecting more from us as we get it done. She has no one hounding here for this info.
Dave From: Hardies, Robert Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 7:47 AM To: Alley, David
Subject:
Salem AFW summary.doc I made some comments and some changes, all of which require verification so that they everything is ultimately accurate.
2