ML102980352
| ML102980352 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 05/13/2010 |
| From: | O'Hara T NRC Region 1 |
| To: | Kamal Manoly Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2010-0334 | |
| Download: ML102980352 (2) | |
Text
OHara, Timothy From:
OHara, Timothy
/0L3:/
Sent:.
Thursday, May 13, 2010 3:5bPM To:
Manoly, Kamal
Subject:
RE: Salem Unit 2/1 AFW Pipe Degradation
- Kamol, Thanks for the information. Appreciate the help.
Tim OHara From: Manoly, Kamal Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 3:42 PM To: Conte, Richard Cc: DeFrancisco, Anne; Balian, Harry; Bowman, Eric; Brown, Michael; Cahill, Christopher; Chernoff, Harold; Gardocki, Stanley; Gray, Harold; Hardies, Robert; Hoffman, Keith; Holston, William; Modes, Michael; Pelton, David; Robinson,. Jay; Sanders, Carleen; Schmidt, Wayne; Thorp, John; Taylor, Robert; Ennis, Rick; Lupold, Timothy; OHara, Timothy; Patnaik, Prakash; Schroeder, Daniel; Schulten, Carl; Tsao, John; Burritt, Arthur; Basavaraju, Chakrapani; Khanna, Meena
Subject:
RE: Salem Unit 2/1 AFW Pipe Degradation
- Rich, With support from Chakrapani Basavaraju of EMCB/DE, we examined the two calculation packages we received regarding the evaluation of corroded AFW piping at Salem. We didn't identify any further questions or discrepancies. As such, we find the evaluation acceptable from a technical (design and ASME Code implementation) perspective. Whether the degradation in the Salem unit 1 AFW piping is bounding for unit 2, is an entirely different matter beyond the material we reviewed and I believe the regional office is making the determination in this regard.
Kamal From: Conte, Richard Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 4:10 PM To: Burritt, Arthur; Ennis, Rick; Lupold, Timothy; Manoly, Kamal; OHara, Timothy; Patnaik, Prakash; Schroeder, Daniel; Schulten, Carl; Tsao, John Cc: DeFrancisco, Anne; Balian, Harry; Bowman, Eric; Brown, Michael; Cahill,. Christopher; Chernoff, Harold; Gardocki, Stanley; Gray, Harold; Hardies, Robert; Hoffman, Keith; Holston, William; Modes, Michael; Pelton, David; Robinson, Jay; Sanders, Carleen; Schmidt, Wayne; Thorp, John; Taylor, Robert
Subject:
Salem Unit 2/1 AFW Pipe Degradation We need another Conference to discuss developments since the April 28 telecon. See attached file for summary and actions along with residual actions. I am looking for Monday pm since Region I is in a counterparts meeting for Tues thru Thursday, can do Thursday pm. I am off Friday.
Some of you may have gotten emails today on entering the TS LCO related to structural integrity and how well it does or does not mesh with rule and code per 10 CFR 50.55a. These residual issues are right after the problem summary in the attached file. During the call we can summarize discuss point and counterpoint.
- 1. Does the licensee need a code relief request to cover:
- a. Time from now to the outage in 2011 lAW 10 CFR 50.55a (g) (5) (iii) as impractical to perform?
- b. Cover the first two periods of the current 10 year interval lAW 10 CFR 50.55a (g) (5) (iii) impractical to perform (they could have done it during there outages) or (iv), post ISI interval review?
1
- 2. Should staff inform PSEG they are violating TS LCO on structural integrity regardless of how ambiguously it is written. Do we really understand the consequence of this action.
- 3. For this case, do the rule/code requirements stand alone and what are they - evaluation of suitability for service in light of not doing the pressure drop test for Unit 2.
I hope to have a conference bridge all afternoon. Hopefully key players as noted in addressee list can communicate their availabiltiy in the pm preferrably 300pm but I am open to 1 2 or 3pm. If you want to be considered as a key player let me know.
2