ML102950184
| ML102950184 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 04/23/2010 |
| From: | O'Hara T NRC Region 1 |
| To: | John Tsao Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2010-0334 | |
| Download: ML102950184 (4) | |
Text
OHara, Timothy J
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
OHara, Timothy tZ. I-Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:48 PM Tsao, John RE: DRAFT OP EVAL 10-005 Salem U2 Buried AFW Pipe
- John, No problem. Most of the management in Region 1 has seen these comments.
Tim OHara
Original Message -----
From: Tsao, John Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:47 PM To: OHara, Timothy
Subject:
RE: DRAFT OP EVAL 10-005 Salem U2 Buried AFW Pipe
- Tim, This is good stuff. Could I forward your writeup to my boss, Tim Lupold?
Thanks.
John S-.-----
Original Message -----
From: OHara, Timothy J*J*-
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:25 PM To: Tsao, John
Subject:
FW: DRAFT OP EVAL 10-005 Salem U2 Buried AFW Pipe
- John, I saw your questions about Unit 2 structural integrity. Here are my comments on the licensee's Operability Eval on Unit 2. I don't think there are enough real measurements on Unit 2 to be able to show structural integrity. This will be an interesting phone call.
Tim OHara Original Message -----
From: OHara, Timothy Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 8:28 PM To: Modes, Michael; Gray, Harold Cc: Conte, Richard; Burritt, Arthur; Schroeder, Daniel
Subject:
FW: DRAFT OP EVAL 10-005 Salem U2 Buried AFW Pipe Here (attached) is the DRAFT of the Unit 2 Operability Evaluation 10-005 (Rev. 0). My comments are below:
(1) Guided Wave is referenced in several places. This undeveloped technology and its information is not appropriate for use in the way they are trying to use it. Guided Wave also did NOT reveal the thinest (0.077")
NInlaOmeon in thiS record was deleted in i a0ordarice with th,Freedom of Infortlon r
at eAt.
FOlVPA
- =; *,i*" *,*
- 1* *i '*,'5;, *.'*'*!
reading on the Unit 1 trench piping. This spot was only located after performing almost 18,000 qualified UT readings. In 2010 there have.been approximately 500 UT readings taken.
(2) PSEG has not presented QC documentation that the specified coating X-Tru-Coat was actually applied on Unit 2. However, it is highly likely that no coating was applied to the Unit 1 piping.
(3) This Unit 2 evaluation spends a lot of time talking about the Unit 1 piping condition, but does not provide much information about the actual Unit 2 piping condition.
(4) This eval. talks at length about the Unit 1 FEA and implies that it gives information about Unit 2's condition.
However, to get an acceptable Unit 1 answer SIA had to lower the design pressure from 1950 to 1275 (the maximum operating pressure seen by unit 1) to be able to accept the degraded wall conditions. This has no bearing on the Unit 2 condition because Unit 2 will be using a design pressure of 1950 and will have to meet a min. wall of 0.278".
(5) The December 1994 inspections (16 years ago) did perform some UT measurements, from 2 areas, and showed no significant wall loss. There was a range in the sets of readings (grid pattern) of 0.035" and 0.048".
The 1994 excavation was only approximately 15' X 3 areas for a total of approx. 45'. Only 2 of the 3 areas were actually documented in 1994. Sample size is very small. Total piping run is approx. 170' per header, or a total of 340'.
(6) We have asked several times 'What was the design life of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 original coatings?". PSEG has not provided an answer for these questions:
(7) PSEG wants to use the Guided Wave in 2011 (next refueling outage on Unit 2) to target areas of interest for follow up UT. This did not work well at the recent Unit 1 excavation because several this areas were not located as aeas of interest by Guided Wave. Several areas were indicated by Guided Wave as areas of interest but turned out to have relatively larger wall thichness that indicated by Guided Wave.
(8) The flow tests info provided in this eval. may not meet the more exact test requirements of IWA-5244.
PSEG was unable to confirm this when asked.
(9) Perhaps the most glaring problem is the sparse data from the piping (about 80') which is buried in the Unit 2 fuel handling area. Two grids on 1 elbow were tested with qualified UT. This area is relatively shallow. The piping goes down about 1.0-12 ft., makes a left turn and runs horizontally for almost 80' where it goes into the Auxiliary Building. So the total actual recent UT samples are only about 1-2 ft of the 170' run (fuel handling building -80', and buried outside containment -86' ). Also, this piping was abandoned in place in Unit 1 rather than dug up and removed for inspection - so relatively little can be gleaned from the Unit 1 piping condition in this deep, buried pipe area.
There are numerous,.outstanding questions on the overall inspection which have not been addressed. PSEG has a nice list but I don't know what they plan on doing with them. I will explore this on Friday when I'm back on site.
Tim OHara Original Message -----
From: OHara, Timothy Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 7:12 AM To: Cahill, Christopher; Schmidt, Wayne
Subject:
FW: DRAFT OP EVAL 10-005 Salem U2 Buried AFW Pipe Chris & Wayne, 2
4 Attached is PSEGs Operability Evaluation (DRAFT) for Unit 2. Rich Conte asked me to send it to you for review. Have fun reviewing.
Tim OHara
Original Message -----
From: Berrick, Howard G. [1]
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 2:15 PM To: OHara, Timothy Cc: Villar, Enrique H.
Subject:
FW' DRAFT OP EVAL 10-005 Salem U2 Buried AFW Pipe Tim - Found it.
Howard Berrick PSEG Nuclear LLC Salem Regulatory Assurance
'<4 PSEG Nuclear - Salem Generating Stations (W) 856-339-1862 (Fax) 856-339-144
.Bpr) lb()
Original Message -----
From: Berrick, Howard G.
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 3:15 PM To: Timothy OHara [Timothy.OHara@nrc.gov]; Schroeder, Daniel L.
Subject:
FW: DRAFT OP EVAL 10-005 Salem U2 Buried AFW Pipe FYI - What we provided this afternoon - DRAFT Howard Berrick PSEG Nuclear LLC Salem Regulatory Assurance PSEG Nuclear - Salem Generating Stations (W) 856-339-1862 S
(Fax) 8.96-119-1,4418.
D*
- _.pr)i (b)(6)
Original Message -----
From: Rajkowski, Leonard J.
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 1:05 PM To: Berrick, Howard G.
Subject:
DRAFT OP EVAL 10-005 Salem U2 Buried AFW Pipe
<<OP EVAL 10-005 Salem U2 Buried AFW Pipe.doc>>
The-information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is intended solely for use by the named
addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or a person designated as responsible for delivering such messages to the intended recipient, you are not authorized to disclose, copy, distribute or retain this message, in whole or in part, without written authorization from PSEG. This e-mail may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately. This notice is included in all e-mail messages leaving PSEG. Thank you for your cooperation.
4