ML102950402
| ML102950402 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 04/16/2010 |
| From: | O'Hara T NRC Region 1 |
| To: | Gray E NRC Region 1 |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2010-0334 | |
| Download: ML102950402 (6) | |
Text
OHara, Timothy From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
OHara, Timothy,?..
Friday, April 16, 2010 12:56 PM Gray, Harold FW: Branch 3 Status - 4/16/10 B3-Status 4-16-1 0,doc
- Harold, The attached file gives a good status on the AFW piping.
Tim From: Cline, Leonard Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 11:00 AM To: Cline, Leonard; Burritt, Arthur; Balian, Harry; DeBoer, Joseph; Miller, Ed; Ennis, Rick; Johnson, Jonathan; Kern, Ludwig; Patel, Amar; Raymond, William; Schroeder, Daniel; Turilin, Andrey; Welling, Blake; Douglas, Christopher Cc: Ennis, Rick; OHara, Timothy; Conte, Richard
Subject:
RE: Branch 3 Status - 4/16/10 See attached.
iftomnation In this record was deleted in accordance with the Fr.ecdom of Information Act.
Exemfptions
__OýA1-1c) e &L5r1-ý FOLWPA 1 2-QBIIv.
I
B N
3 Outside of Scope BRANCH 3 DAILY 4116/10 STATUS mignmigntea items were aiscussea at ur r-.r*o 1.,uuru[aiUn mdeting RAI rl it~m,=**
p Outside of Scope A, LI-(gx)?,0..07 *!. : :. :A 1
AL2=(2of3)ý0.!
.;i
- *[3 (1 )>
- 1 i
LEM
-ON Weekend Coverage: Dan (Sat)/Harry (Sun) o A="2
>:.1
!"3=(
0>.13 Outside of Scope A-VV Piping Uegradation Buried AFW piping to the 12 and 14 S/Gs appears to have significant degradation of the protective coating and piping.
The preliminary guided wave inspection results indicate that the ASME Class 2 piping is degraded below min wall.
The pipe is schedule 80 4" inside diameter carbon steel piping with a coal tar type coating that appears to been hand applied. The piping run of concern involves about 150 ft of pipe that is buried at depths ranging from 4 ft adjacent to the out side of containment to 17 ft deep in a covered area adjacent to the containment.
The UT results confirmed the guided wave results. Engineering determined they could not support operability of the piping through the next cycle.
EOC - Unit 2 has greater margin - it is a newer plant and is presumably in better condition; documentation exists that proves the piping was opened and inspected -10 years ago and found to be in pristine condition; ISI code gives more allowance to an operating unit (they can take credit for up to 90% of the yield stress). DRS was provided access to the available information and completed its review. There are no immediate safety concerns.
On each unit there are three safety-related systems with buried piping (ASW, SW and control air) o Control air coating in tact, PSEG will document the inspection.
o Control air small leak. PSEG cut out and replaced. Will evaluate the failure mechanism (believe it was repeatedly stepped on).
o No previous UT inspections for service water piping, previously focused on seals for bell and spigot joints (as of end of outage all will have been replaced). Based on SW piping OE the current concern would be groundwater corrosion of the metal bands between concrete layers.
o No recorded inspections of Unit 1 AFW piping PSEG evaluating past operability for Unit 1 using finite element analysis. Results will be used to determine if MC 0309 entry conditions are met (if piping was inop need to perform an MC 0309 review).
Update as of.615 4
at -0730
- S~hall'ow pipe UITs (1 x 1"examinaitkn gid): 'Surfaqe,,prep was taking too lco'ng sobackedou~t~ of* Uts 'a'nd:'wil cut out any sections of the'sh11l'w pipe ýtha~t they did,'not complete UT
~Theyý Wllf~Ih ni
'o !h sections :after the pip* is cutobUt.
Cret a cb ttof.
80 of the shallow piping was cut out an wi be replaced onthe 12 and.14 ii~i
'*!iCurrently a conlib0m in~edtt!
i*0 ft"ft* hiiwpii s'
ii
!nd*lib AFIW headers.
rdh* 8ftinluided areaw here UT results indicated les's,thian b*200"' thi6crknss'n.*id'as' that were not UT'd.
ISEG expects the finite element'analysis (PEA) to be completed and 3separty review n
9.'ýPSEG will use the FEA results to support past operability for Unit 1, cycle operability for Unit 1 and_ tOdetermnne anned for additional review of the pipe condition at Unit 2.
PSEG claims that they have :an acceptable bounding analysis ursing0.1 52" thickHess at 1275 psig forUn*it1 and tplanto implement an AFW design change throughOi 50.59.
Evaluation of deep sectionof pipe also completed. PSEG currently plans no piping*replacements" in tthis; area:
UTs werrecompletted around one elbow in deep section. Thinnest UT measurement in this area was 0.226" Cycle operability equirement was 0.200".
Guided wave measurements for 20 ft of the deep straight run are better than the origgial guided wave results for tihe shallowpipe guided wave measurements. (30% wall loespvs.40% wall loss)
Excavated to a level below the ground water and identified that piping was coated. Areas of pipe above that level are currently uncoated but will be recoated.
"WillI perfo"m hydrostatic test, of the entire length, of pipe,-7 deep and shallow sections'- totverify structural integrity.
Repair status as of 4/16 at 0730
.8qof25!,welds~completedio&nthe piping'in preparation for,replacements minthe Shallowsection Degraded Equipment None Outside of Scope
Outside bf Scope
Outside of. Scope
[Outside oT Scope