ML102980528
| ML102980528 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 04/26/2010 |
| From: | O'Hara T NRC Region 1 |
| To: | Conte R NRC Region 1 |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2010-0334 | |
| Download: ML102980528 (1) | |
Text
Conte, Richard
\\
From:
OHara, Timothy 9
Sent:
Monday, April 26, 2010 1:15 PM To:
Conte, Richard
Subject:
FW: Comments On Salem Unit #2 (DRAFT) Operability Determination 005 FYI From: OHara, Timothy Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 1:05 PM To: OHara, Timothy; Burritt, Arthur; Schroeder, Daniel Cc: Conte, Richard
Subject:
RE: Comments On Salem Unit #2 (DRAFT) Operability Determination 005 Correcting the dimensions on comment 2.
From: OHara, Timothy Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 1:01 P To:.Burritt, Arthur; Schroeder, Daniel Cc: Conte, Richard
Subject:
Comments On Salem Unit #2 (DRAFT) Operability Determination 005 Comments:
(1) Page 1, Section 1.7, third paragraph says that the buried "pipe travels approximately 30' underground".
However, the latest drawing which I have shows that the piping run from the FHB to the Mechanical Penetration room is 86'6".
(2) Page 1, Section 1.7 also ignores the fact that there is an additional approximately 80 f each h4er buried in the FHB Room to Nowhere. The approximate length of.each header alone is acfally 166" 'total buried piping length of approximately 333' - way more that 30'.
(3) Page 3, Section Titled: December 1994 Inspection, says, in part, "...#22 and #24 Aux. Feed Lines appeared to be in excellent condition". Report SCI-94-0877 which is the only report I'm aware of from 1994 does not contain the word excellent anywhere. The report says that 2 of the 3 excavated areas were open when inspected but the 3 rd had been restored. The following words are in the report: "From visual observations, some of the coating has adhered very well, and in other areas it had flaked off'.
( 7 >age 4, Section Titled: Upper AFW Pipe (#24) The conclusion is drawn that the UT thickness variations n ot the result of corrosion, however, no basis for the conclusion is given.
(15 page 4, Section Titled: Upper AFW Pipe (#22) The conclusion is drawn that the UT thickness variations r~e not the result of corrosion, however, no basis for the conclusion is given.
(6) Page 4, Section Titled: Post-inspection: There is no QC record for this repair of the coating.
Tim OHara C/96