ML102980478

Email from O'Hara, Timothy to Schroeder, Daniel, Et Al, FW: Salem Unit 1 PI&R Status - 9/22/10

ML102980478
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	09/22/2010
From:	O'Hara T Engineering Region 1 Branch 1
To:	Daniel Schroeder Reactor Projects Branch 3
References
FOIA/PA-2010-0334
Download: ML102980478 (2)

Text

OHara, Timothy From: OHara, Timothy I 2 0 3 Sent: Wednesday, Septemb'er 22, 2010 3:31 PM To: Schroeder, Daniel Cc: Burritt, Arthur; Conte, Richard

Subject:

FW: Salem Unit 1 PI&R Status - 9/22/10

Dan, I discussed delaying the rest of this sample inspection with Rich Conte this morning - see email below - and he has agreed. Item 2 (below) is controlling the completion of the PI&R sample. I've informed Howard that I'd like to know when 2, 5, and 4 are complete so I can return to the site and finish this inspection. If these items are complete, it should only take one day to complete this sample inspection. However, this will now slip into the 4 th quarter.

I'll be at home and in the Region tomorrow. Call my cell if you have any questions (cell 609-238-9389).

Tim OHara From: OHara, Timothy *-I-Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 8:16 AM To: Conte, Richard Cc: Meyer, Glenn

Subject:

Salem Unit 1 PI&R Status - 9/22/10

Rich, I've completed answers to some of the questions I was following up on. However, PSEG is working on several open questions at present and some of the questions have been delayed until October 2010.

Because of these delays and the FOIA processing which I need to complete tomorrow, I'm not sure I'm going to be able to complete this sample this week. I'll be compressed on Friday this week. This will result in this sample being left open until the end of the 4 th quarter, provided PSEG completes the answers in time to inspect them.

The following relevant issues remain open:

(1) PSEG has not determined what the design life of the originally specified coating was. PSEG has not evaluated the potential of this situation affecting the condition of other buried piping. (They are not doing anything else on this issue. Their judgment is that that the coating would have lasted 40 years but there is no vendor data or engineering data to support this assumption.)

(2) PSEG has not provided a basis for the 1950 psig design pressure of the AFW system. (delayed unitl 10/27/10)

(3) PSEG has not determined the design life of the new coating on the replaced U1 AFW piping. (They are using the vendors estimate of 8 - 10 year life. They are planning on inspecting the new U1 AFW piping in 9 years, at present.)

(4) PSEG is looking for the completed ASME NIS-2 form for the repair of the U1 AFW piping. (Received one of the 2 forms today. Waiting for the other one.)

(5) PSEG is re-thinking whether they will update/correct past OAR's which are known to be incomplete and inaccurate due to missed pressure testing. (PSEG is discussing what action to take.)

I have a follow up meeting with PSEG this afternoon and I'll let you know if any of this changes.

Tim OHara 2