ML102950491

E-Mail from Ohara to Conte, AF Issues at Salem 1 and 2

ML102950491
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	04/11/2010
From:	O'Hara T NRC Region 1
To:	Conte R, Wilson P Division of Reactor Safety I
References
FOIA/PA-2010-0334
Download: ML102950491 (1)

Text

Ziev, Tracez From: OHara, Timothy Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 12:01 PM To: Conte, Richard; Wilson, Peter Cc: Schroeder, Daniel; Balian, Harry; Modes, Michael; Burritt, Arthur; Ennis, Rick

Subject:

AF Issues At Salem 1 & 2 Rich, I will be back on site at Salem approx. 10:00 AM tomorrow (Monday). I need to get a routine blood test early tomorrow. I haven't been able to reach the Residents or Howard Berrick today to get an update but I assume they are still on schedule with the excavation at Unit 1.

Here is my summary and several issues which I have:

Unit 1:

(1) I'll be asking several questions concerning the excavation and UT measurements and the upcoming FEA.

Do we want to pursue an independent FEA through Research and Sandia?

(2) Do you anticipate a conference call with NRR & LR on the buried piping this week? I would favor any day at approximately 3:00 PM.

(3) I'll continue to follow the excavation and measurements on Unit 1. On Friday, 4/9, PSEG estimated 4 full days would be needed to complete the excavation and UT measurements.

(4) PSEG appears to be proceeding without addressing the perceived causes of the corrosion. I've been told that the cause determination will be completed when the repair has been completed. This seems to be backward.

(5) Oh yeah, I'll also be working on completing the 7111108P inspection requirements. Should be some EC inspections to look at this week.

Unit 2:

(1) 1 provided PSEG with multiple questions about the Unit 2 situation on Friday PM. A very limited amount of the data was provided yesterday and much more is needed. At this time, I believe that the Unit 2 AFW piping should be excavated and the coating inspected to ensure that the same condition doesn't exist on Unit 2.

(2) 1 base (1) upon the fact that PSEG has not given a cause for the Unit 1 failure and that enough information has not been provided to make the judgement that Unit 2 is any better that Unit 1 was discovered to be. That being said, I can't say that there is an urgent need to inspect Unit 2's piping. This position may change depending upon the results of the UT characterization of the rest of the Unit 1 AF piping.

(3) We have heard about soil chemistry data affecting both Units, however, I'don't see chemistry concerns affecting or shaping the short term actions-which are being taken.

Call me on my cell if you have any questions or need additional information.

Tim OHara ()()

lrformatmIon We hi recood was delee in accordance with the Freedom of Inforynmmon . (A Exmpos 6-