ML102980262
| ML102980262 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 04/21/2010 |
| From: | Clifford J Division Reactor Projects I |
| To: | David Lew Division Reactor Projects I |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2010-0334 | |
| Download: ML102980262 (1) | |
Text
Lew, David From:
Clifford, James Sent:
Wednesday, April 21, 2010 7:08 PM To:
Lew, David
Subject:
RE: Notes from Fricker call We discussed the current situation of the Salem AFW piping with Carl Fricker (Salem VP) to better understand the licensee's focus and next steps, particularly with respect to the operability of Unit 2 AFW piping.
Salem Unit 2 is currently in a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> LCO (as of 11:32 am) for a potentially missed surveillance test (a pressure drop test for the buried portions of the Unit 2 AFW piping). The licensee believes that this test is only required if both ends of the pipe are isolable, which they are in the process of verifying. The licensee's next steps are to verify the applicability of this test, and if required, determine if they can conduct the test at power; otherwise they expect to perform a risk analysis to determine if they can extend the LCO beyond 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> (out to the full surveillance interval, up to 36 months).
The licensee has also decided to excavate a portion of the Unit 2 AFW piping in the near term (likely tonight) in the fuel handling building, and inspect the pipe coating as well as perform UT inspections of portions of this.
buried pipe.
The licensee is also considering excavating other portions of the buried section of Unit 2's AFW piping and conducting similar inspections to gain added assurance of the Unit 2 AFW pipe condition to support their operability assessment.
The licensee is also performing a more detailed evaluation of their finite element analysis on the Unit 1 AFW piping after the most recent stage of the evaluation concluded that structural integrity could not be assured; the next stage of the evaluation would look at potential plastic deformation of the pipe, which would provide some measure of structural integrity of the pipe. The licensee expects their contractor to have the results of their latest analysis in about 24 - 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />.
The licensee is also planning to conduct more extensive testing of the removed sections of the Unit 1 AFW pipe, including testing at full operating pressure, to further evaluate the structural integrity of the Unit 1 piping, and potential implications on the Unit 2 piping.
Our next steps will be to evaluate the results of the licensee's inspection of the Unit 2 buried piping; and to evaluate any risk assessment the licensee develops to extend TS 4.0.3. The licensee senior management appears appropriately focused On the operability of the Unit 2 AFW piping.