ML102950214

Branch 3 Daily Status

ML102950214
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	04/28/2010
From:	NRC Region 1
To:	NRC Region 1
References
FOIA/PA-2010-0334
Download: ML102950214 (5)

Text

4/28/10 Muring"te j iter"s were uist;u5suo at ummuma  %,vuTuTrrcnmn mcwting tside oT Scope SALEM ONE Weekend Coverage: AL =(9X)>O.07 AL2=(2of3)>O. 11 AL3=(1X)>013.

Outside of Scope AFW follow-up issues Verify hydro/pressure test is code compliant - O'Hara, determined approach was acceptable, received test records but still needs to verify test results. PSEG will also provide the leak check procedure 4127 am.

• Evaluate the 50.59 for AFW modifications - O'Hara, received 4/27

• Smart samples o Verify repairs to the control air system elbow that was replaced (how will PSEG certify the repair) - O'Hara, PSEG adding more detail to description of document, to provide by 4/27 PM o Verify control air extent of condition - O'Hara o Backfill procedure reviews to verify coating and backfill cure times - O'Hara, PSEG to provide by 4/27 pm o Verify control air clamping material - O'Hara, PSEG to provide supporting document 4/27 am co AFW pipe weld records - O'Hara, PSEG to assess status of documents by 4/27 pm Outside of Scope ftnatn Inr*ttcreom was delleW in n

. . . . . . ,-s M.

Dutside of Scope Unit 2AFW Testing -PSEG determined that they did not perform ASME code required pressure drop test for the buried sections of the 22 and 24 headers.

• C0nfirm the PSEG'risk assessment to delay. AFW.test.ing for 1yearT is reasonable - Cahill; complete, no concerns

• Evaluate if performing a risk assessmentti t eet TechniclSpeciIficatiion4.0,5 is'appropriate if a test was never performed verses missed - Conte/Ennis, follow-up with T/S branch regarding TIA and precedent - discussions ongoing Operability - Initial assessment Unit 2 was that it is in better condition based on newer piping; 1994 inspection that identified intact coating; and ISI code gives more allowance to an operating unit (can take credit for up to 90% of the yield stress).

" Evaluate the Unit 2 AFW extent of condition operability assessment - Schroeder/O'Hara operability determination received 4127

• Confirm the finite element analysis for the Unit 1 as found condition is acceptable including the use of appropriate methodsand assumptions - Gray and O'Hara reviewed and did not identify any concerns; HQ review in pr~ogress j*

n I Dutside of Scope

AdditionallItemst Status Board Items:

• Salem 1, AFW buried piping - modifications and testing

• Salem 2, (PRIORITY) - T/S risk assessment for AFW~testingý operability determination I

Outside of Scop.

Outside of Scope

[outsidae of Scope