ML102950398: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:BRANCH 3 DAILY | {{#Wiki_filter:Outside of Scope BRANCH 3 DAILY 4/15/10 STATUS Ig I nlyllllyllt*U Itq*lllO W*lt* Ui~!UO~UuJ rn *ggl UIII*IIIDI I lilY.ill ROLD itArnq are new Outside of Scope 1 | ||
Outside of Scope S Weekend Coverage: | S Weekend Coverage: Dan (Sat)lHarry (Sun) ALI=(9X)>0,07 AL2=(2of3)>0.1l1 I r AL3=(1X)>0.13 I I 'I~ | ||
Dan (Sat)lHarry (Sun) ALI=(9X)>0,07 | I Outside of Scope | ||
'I~I | * Buried AFW piping to the 12 and 14 S/Gs appears to have significant degradation of the protective coating and piping. | ||
* The UT results confirmed the guided wave results. Engineering determined they could not support operability of the piping through the next cycle.EOC -Unit 2 has greater margin -it is a newer plant and is presumably in better condition; documentation exists that proves the piping was opened and inspected | The preliminary guided wave inspection results indicate that the ASME Class 2 piping is degraded below min wall. | ||
-10 years ago and found to be in pristine condition; ISI code gives more allowance to an operating unit (they can take credit for up to 90% of the yield stress). DRS was provided access to the available information and completed its review. There are no immediate safety concerns.* On each unit there are three safety-related systems with buried piping (ASW, SW and control air)o Control air coating in tact, PSEG will document the inspection. | The pipe is schedule 80 4" inside diameter carbon steel piping with a coal tar type coating that appears to been hand applied. The piping run of concern involves about 150 ft of pipe that is buried at depths ranging from 4 ft adjacent to the out side of containment to 17 ft deep in a covered area adjacent to the containment. | ||
o Control air small leak. PSEG cut out and replaced. | * The UT results confirmed the guided wave results. Engineering determined they could not support operability of the piping through the next cycle. | ||
Will evaluate the failure mechanism (believe it was , hlfomffiaxjoi~ | EOC - Unit 2 has greater margin - it is a newer plant and is presumably in better condition; documentation exists that proves the piping was opened and inspected -10 years ago and found to be in pristine condition; ISI code gives more allowance to an operating unit (they can take credit for up to 90% of the yield stress). DRS was provided access to the available information and completed its review. There are no immediate safety concerns. | ||
n Ztnit reccivro , Ovto ill1 acotdance Whith the Froodorn of | * On each unit there are three safety-related systems with buried piping (ASW, SW and control air) o Control air coating in tact, PSEG will document the inspection. | ||
* formnaton Act.ExempionsQ)c~ | o Control air small leak. PSEG cut out and replaced. Will evaluate the failure mechanism (believe it was , | ||
repeatedly stepped on).o No previous UT inspections for service water piping, previously focused on seals for bell and spigot joints (as of end of outage all will have been replaced). | hlfomffiaxjoi~ n Ztnit reccivro , Ovto ill1 acotdance Whith the Froodorn of | ||
Based on SW piping OE the current concern would be groundwater corrosion of the metal bands between concrete layers.o No recorded inspections of Unit 1 AFW piping PSEG evaluating past operability for Unit 1 using finite element analysis. | * formnaton Act. | ||
Results will be used to determine if MC 0309 entry conditions are met (if piping was inop need to perform an MC 0309 review).Updateas of 4115 at 07301" SShallow pipe UTs (1"x I" examination grid): Surface prep was taking too long so backed outof UTs and will, cut out any sections of the shwallowpipe that they did not :omplete Theywill finish on those~sectionsafter he pipels~cOutout. | ExempionsQ)c~ | ||
to i~hloppn~wibctotad1 F | |||
PSEG n piping UTs were completed around onelbow in deep section. Thinnest UT measurement in this area was 0.226" ,Cycle operabilitysreuirement was 0.200".* Guided wave measurementsfor 20ft of the deep straight run areýbetter than the odginaguided wave results for the shlallow pipguided wave measurements.ý (30/ wall~loss | repeatedly stepped on). | ||
"-* 7Excavatedto a level belowth" | o No previous UT inspections for service water piping, previously focused on seals for bell and spigot joints (as of end of outage all will have been replaced). Based on SW piping OE the current concern would be groundwater corrosion of the metal bands between concrete layers. | ||
~~~~~.~1 Outside of Scope Outside of Scope Status Board Items:_Salem AFW buried opiing (PRIORITY) | o No recorded inspections of Unit 1 AFW piping PSEG evaluating past operability for Unit 1 using finite element analysis. Results will be used to determine if MC 0309 entry conditions are met (if piping was inop need to perform an MC 0309 review). | ||
Updateas of 4115 at 07301" SShallow pipe UTs (1"x I" examination grid): Surface prep was taking too long so backed outof UTs and will, cut out any sections of the shwallowpipe that they did not :omplete U*s. Theywill finish UT*s on those | |||
~sectionsafter he pipels~cOutout. to i~hloppn~wibctotad1 F cmbne f th sallw ipng*.llbecu ot ndreplaced onthe 12,and 1 ttalof-5ft 6dienlya F Iheaders.V*Tlhe 50 ft includes areas where UT results'in4Jdicated i than 0.200" thickness .and areas that~were not UT'd& | |||
'PSEG expects the finite element analysis (FEA) to be completn d and 3 rd party reviewed on4/17.-PSEG willUSe the FEA results to support past operability for Unit 1; cycle operability for Unit 1, and'to determilne any nee~d for additional review of the pipe condition at Unit 2. Based on the 4117 date for the FEA, Operability determinations will not be completed until 4119. | |||
SPSEG claims that they havetan acceptable bounding analysis using *0.152" thickness at,11275 psig for Unit I and plan to implement an AFW design change through 50.59. | |||
of deep section Evaluation oof pipealso completed. PSEG n piping UTs were completed around onelbow in deep section. Thinnest UT measurement in this area was 0.226" | |||
,Cycle operabilitysreuirement was 0.200". | |||
* Guided wave measurementsfor 20ft of the deep straight run areýbetter than the odginaguided wave results for the shlallow pipguided wave measurements.ý (30/ wall~loss vs.4*%1alllosis)l "- | |||
* 7Excavatedto a level belowth" Iground water and identified that piping was coated.- Areasof pipe above that level are currently uncoated but will be recoated. | |||
Willperform hydrostatic test0of the entire length of pipe deep and shallow sectionsf-Itoverifstructural | |||
~~~~~.~1 Outside of Scope | |||
Outside of Scope Additional, Items I | |||
Status Board Items: | |||
_Salem AFW buried opiing (PRIORITY) t" uts e o cope | |||
Outs~de of Sco.pe OutsWde'of Scope}} | |||
Latest revision as of 15:35, 11 March 2020
| ML102950398 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 04/15/2010 |
| From: | - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Office of Information Services |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2010-0334 | |
| Download: ML102950398 (5) | |
Text
Outside of Scope BRANCH 3 DAILY 4/15/10 STATUS Ig I nlyllllyllt*U Itq*lllO W*lt* Ui~!UO~UuJ rn *ggl UIII*IIIDI I lilY.ill ROLD itArnq are new Outside of Scope 1
S Weekend Coverage: Dan (Sat)lHarry (Sun) ALI=(9X)>0,07 AL2=(2of3)>0.1l1 I r AL3=(1X)>0.13 I I 'I~
I Outside of Scope
- Buried AFW piping to the 12 and 14 S/Gs appears to have significant degradation of the protective coating and piping.
The preliminary guided wave inspection results indicate that the ASME Class 2 piping is degraded below min wall.
The pipe is schedule 80 4" inside diameter carbon steel piping with a coal tar type coating that appears to been hand applied. The piping run of concern involves about 150 ft of pipe that is buried at depths ranging from 4 ft adjacent to the out side of containment to 17 ft deep in a covered area adjacent to the containment.
- The UT results confirmed the guided wave results. Engineering determined they could not support operability of the piping through the next cycle.
EOC - Unit 2 has greater margin - it is a newer plant and is presumably in better condition; documentation exists that proves the piping was opened and inspected -10 years ago and found to be in pristine condition; ISI code gives more allowance to an operating unit (they can take credit for up to 90% of the yield stress). DRS was provided access to the available information and completed its review. There are no immediate safety concerns.
- On each unit there are three safety-related systems with buried piping (ASW, SW and control air) o Control air coating in tact, PSEG will document the inspection.
o Control air small leak. PSEG cut out and replaced. Will evaluate the failure mechanism (believe it was ,
hlfomffiaxjoi~ n Ztnit reccivro , Ovto ill1 acotdance Whith the Froodorn of
- formnaton Act.
ExempionsQ)c~
repeatedly stepped on).
o No previous UT inspections for service water piping, previously focused on seals for bell and spigot joints (as of end of outage all will have been replaced). Based on SW piping OE the current concern would be groundwater corrosion of the metal bands between concrete layers.
o No recorded inspections of Unit 1 AFW piping PSEG evaluating past operability for Unit 1 using finite element analysis. Results will be used to determine if MC 0309 entry conditions are met (if piping was inop need to perform an MC 0309 review).
Updateas of 4115 at 07301" SShallow pipe UTs (1"x I" examination grid): Surface prep was taking too long so backed outof UTs and will, cut out any sections of the shwallowpipe that they did not :omplete U*s. Theywill finish UT*s on those
~sectionsafter he pipels~cOutout. to i~hloppn~wibctotad1 F cmbne f th sallw ipng*.llbecu ot ndreplaced onthe 12,and 1 ttalof-5ft 6dienlya F Iheaders.V*Tlhe 50 ft includes areas where UT results'in4Jdicated i than 0.200" thickness .and areas that~were not UT'd&
'PSEG expects the finite element analysis (FEA) to be completn d and 3 rd party reviewed on4/17.-PSEG willUSe the FEA results to support past operability for Unit 1; cycle operability for Unit 1, and'to determilne any nee~d for additional review of the pipe condition at Unit 2. Based on the 4117 date for the FEA, Operability determinations will not be completed until 4119.
SPSEG claims that they havetan acceptable bounding analysis using *0.152" thickness at,11275 psig for Unit I and plan to implement an AFW design change through 50.59.
of deep section Evaluation oof pipealso completed. PSEG n piping UTs were completed around onelbow in deep section. Thinnest UT measurement in this area was 0.226"
,Cycle operabilitysreuirement was 0.200".
- Guided wave measurementsfor 20ft of the deep straight run areýbetter than the odginaguided wave results for the shlallow pipguided wave measurements.ý (30/ wall~loss vs.4*%1alllosis)l "-
- 7Excavatedto a level belowth" Iground water and identified that piping was coated.- Areasof pipe above that level are currently uncoated but will be recoated.
Willperform hydrostatic test0of the entire length of pipe deep and shallow sectionsf-Itoverifstructural
~~~~~.~1 Outside of Scope
Outside of Scope Additional, Items I
Status Board Items:
_Salem AFW buried opiing (PRIORITY) t" uts e o cope
Outs~de of Sco.pe OutsWde'of Scope