ML102980078
| ML102980078 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 06/24/2010 |
| From: | Appajosula Rao Division Reactor Projects I |
| To: | Andrey Turilin Reactor Projects Branch 3 |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2010-0334 | |
| Download: ML102980078 (3) | |
Text
Ziev, Tracey From:
Rao, Ami Sent:
Thursday, June 24, 2010 3:32 PM To:
Turilin, Andrey
Subject:
RE: Significant Accomplishments/ Challenges for Branch 3 thank you.
From: Turilin, Andrey C--.
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 2:59 PM To: Rao, Ami
Subject:
RE: Significant Accomplishments/ Challenges for Branch 3 SALEM
- 1. From PSEG drop in for Sam Collins (Salem)
AFW buried piping degradation identified at Salem Unit 1 was unexpected and both PSEG's and the NRC's response were complicated by the fact that the system was not installed per design or tested per ASME code requirements and because design documentation that identified the system's as-built configuration was not readily available.
- 2. From quarterly Chairman package Unit 1 AFW Buried Piping Degradation PSEG identified significant piping and coating degradation for the buried AFW supply piping for 2 of the 4 steam generators. The pipe was schedule 80, 4" inside diameter, carbon steel piping with'a protective coating. Based on preliminary UT measuremtents,of the piping, engineering.,detearmined lAFW system operability could not be assured through next ope'ratinig cycle. Additional UT examhinatibns Were performed to evaluate the structural integrity of the pipe and to identify the sections of pipe that needed replacement. Based on these measurements, PSEG replaced all of the buried pipe. To fully evaluate the impact of the identified pipe degradation on the AFW system PSEG hired a contractor to complete a finite element analysis. The results of the finite element analysis determined that although the pipe would have experienced plastic deformation in the more significantly degraded areas, the system would have maintained structural integrity. PSEG also completed excavation on portions of the Unit 2 AFW buried piping in locations similar to the areas were both coating and pipe degradation was identified on Unit 1. Visual inspections of the coating and UT inspections of the piping determined that conditions on Unit 2 were better than they were on Unit 1.
Unit 2 AFW Buried Piping Test Requirements During extent of condition reviews that PSEG was performing in response to NRC inspection activities for the Unit 1 AFW pipe degradation, IPSEG determined thattheYi had not compiletecdi:erqdUir*l ASME code testing for the buried section of the Unit 2 AFW pViping. Specifically, the ASME code requires a pressure drop test for buried piping sections that can be isolated. PSEG determined the subject piping section on Unit 2 could be isolated and therefore the pressure drop test could have and should have been performed. Available ISI program documentation did not identify that there was buried piping in the AFW system.
Outside of Scope m
a(in fwis Wecord war, M na *e in aMC4'IM7)C Wfth the,
.Of iont~A~
Outside of Scope
Outside of Scope