ML102980367

Email from Ohara, Timothy to Patel, Amar, FW: Salem Unit 2 AFW - Memory Test from 1994!

ML102980367
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	04/21/2010
From:	O'Hara T Engineering Region 1 Branch 1
To:	Amar Patel Reactor Projects Branch 3
References
FOIA/PA-2010-0334
Download: ML102980367 (2)

Text

OHara, Timothy From: OHara, Timothy Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 010 9:08 AM To: Patel, Amar

Subject:

FW: Salem Unit 2 AFW - Memory Test From 1994!

From: Conte, Richard Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 8:05 AM To: OHara, Timothy; Burritt, Arthur; Gray, Harold; Schroeder, Daniel; Balian, Harry Cc: Schoppy, Joseph

Subject:

RE: Salem Unit 2 AFW - Memory Test From 1994!

I note how fast they were to dig and NOT show to the inspector back in 1994 and how slow they are to get to dig now.

the bottom line is whatever the story is in the trench they still don't and won't have information much information on the buried pipe in the sand that is most likely wet in Unit 2's FHB.

In fact in Unit 1, the 77 mill reading in the trench quickly led to the FHB piping needs to be replaced.

From: OHara, Timothy Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 6:57 AM To: Conte, Richard; Burritt, Arthur; Gray, Harold; Schroeder, Daniel; Balian, Harry Cc: Schoppy, Joseph

Subject:

FW: Salem Unit 2 AFW - Memory Test From 1994!

Gentlemen, I email Joe Schoppy a few questions - below. And, his responses are shown in BOLD below. Not sure this changes a whole lot but let me know what else might be helpful.

Tim OHara From: Schoppy, Joseph Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 6:45 AM To: OHara, Timothy

Subject:

.RE: Salem Unit 2 AFW - Memory Test From 1994!

Funny that you mention this as I recalled that issue right away when I heard of the Salem AFW piping concern (and actually walk down the outer pens to "re-inspect" whenever I'm onsite). Based on a rough recollection:

(1) Can you describe what condition or symptoms prompted your questioning? During tours of outer pens, I noticed water leakage running down the wall right beneath the AFW piping as it enters the room, down in the pit, from below ground (both Units, but I recall that the condition of concern was more prominent on Unit 2).

(2) Where, and how much water did you observe? Beneath AFW supply piping, outer pen - trickle flow -

not a steady stream. Where did you observe it? See above.

(3) What do you remember about the inspection of the buried piping in 1994? PSEG was quick initially to ASSUME it was just ground water. We pressed them to "prove it" and pressed them to sample to determine if water source was AFW or ground water. I don't recall actually getting to see excavated piping as they may have dug some up and re-buried almost overnight. How many areas were excavated? No recollection. Could both AFW headers be visually inspected in all excavated areas? No info.

(4) Who were the principal investigators for PSEG at that time? No recollection, although Mr. Art Garcia may have been involved as he was the AFW system engineer at the time, I think. I ran into Art recently onsite.

(5) Can you remember your assessment of the AFW piping after excavating? I do not recall observing buried piping. Were both headers visible? Not to me (or not that I recall seeing).

(6) Do you know if the excavated areas had the pipes (both headers) recoated before re-burying? No recollection. Do you know what the pipes were re-coated with and how long it was to remain effective? No info.

(7) We are told that the AFW pipes were not leaking. That is what we were lead to believe and the information presented supported. Otherwise, the odds are very good that the inspectors (the SRI in particular) would not have "let go of" the issue. As mentioned above, I remained skeptical (part of my training, trust but verify) and still look at the same piping penetration every time I'm on the Salem side doing inspection (there's other good stuff in those pens, so I'm not just making a trip in there to look at that piping). If you believe that was the case, do you know what source they attributed the, originally observed, water too? Ground water, I believe. I think that they may have re-sealed that penetration at the time to limit ground water intrusion. I haven't observed a repeat of the condition since. Otherwise, we'd have to go down the same path again.

Not sure that it helps. You sure do ask a lot of good questions.

Keep charging!

Sorry, my data storage and retrieval system is running on 1950's technology:

A- Joe's memory banks.

2