ML102940096

E-Mail from Conte to Ohara, Need for Conference Call Fea of Degraded Salem Unit 1 Faw Piping

ML102940096
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	04/26/2010
From:	Conte R Division of Nuclear Materials Safety I
To:	John Tsao, Arthur Burritt, Christopher Cahill, Timothy Lupold, Kamal Manoly, O'Hara T, Schmidt W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety I
References
FOIA/PA-2010-0334
Download: ML102940096 (3)

Text

Ziev, Tracey From: Conte, Richard Sent: Monday, April 26;2010`5:11 PM To: OHara, Timothy; Tszaoi John; Lupold, Timbthy; Manoly, Kamal; Burritt, Arthur; Cahill, Christopher; Schmrid.t, ayne Cc: Ennis, Rick; Elliott, Robert

Subject:

Need for conference call RE: FEA of Degraded Salem Unit 1 AFW Piping we are looking to do a conference call on Wednesday at 300pm or 330 NLT 400pm to go over what we know about the number of documents that have come in. we think Unit 1 can safely startup in light of repairs and code compliance.

Hdqtrs is reviewing the FEA that will be used to support at Unit 1 past operability determination and root cuase report. not sure when the later two documents will be in but they are not needed for Unit 1 starup.

There is a tech eval on reduced rated pressure to 1275 that was reviewed also in order to support"the past operability review. Not sure how it applies'to Unit 2.

Unit 2 current operability and risk assessment (with 1.25 year exposure time on risk) is in on draft and we plan to engage licensee representatives tomorrow on what information supports the Jan 21, 2010 start fo the 1.25 years to the outage next spring in 2011.

Bottom line* is looks like back in the construction days, Unit 2 was properly coated but Unit 1 was not. No definitive answers yet as to why, based on desing or documented as left or as found condition back in the 1970s.

We are also trying to deal with the acceptablilty of the Unit 2 operability determination based on an ASME pressure test that was never done and operational information, that support flow measurements but may not be considered the alternate ASME unabated flow test per the same code.

With respect to the previous paragraph, a TIA on Pilgirm (ml 083660174) from ITSB seems to accept, partially, an industry position that the test can be deferred if there is a basis that the test will pass - still a violation for which we could issue NCV is green (preferred) or exercise enforcement discretion (least preferred since they were caught on this issue). Not sure the flow information (not test) is as sensitive as the pressure drop but then again the coating issue seems to be different from Unit 1. I need to talk to someone in TS branch and or Lupold on this issue, perhaps tomorrow before the conference call - what is a reasonable expectation that the pressure drop test will pass in the spring of next year? When we get a less draft oper det. we can forward it.

---

Original Message -----

From: OHara, Timothy Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 4(I M To: Conte, Richard

Subject:

FW: FEA of Degraded Salem Unit 1 AFW Piping Importance: High

Rich, Timh&pid has ked John Tsao to forwardthe FEA to Kamal Manoly for review.

amp- ... J ;* . .. -

---

Original Message -----

From: Tsao, John Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 4:15 PM To: Manoly, Kamal Cc: Lupold, Timothy; OHara, Timothy

Subject:

FW: FEA of Degraded Salem Unit 1 AFW Piping Importance: High Kamal, Tim O'Hara of Region I forwarded me the FEA report for the Salem buried AFW piping. Tim Lupold asked me to forward the FEA report to you (see the first attached file). Attachment No. 2 is my assessment of the FEA report that I sent to Tim O'Hara this morning. Attachments No. 3 and 4 are the preliminary information for the FEA report.

Thanks.

John Original Message -----

From: OHara, Timothy Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 2:23 PM To: Tsao, John Cc: Lupold, Timothy; Conte, Richard; Gray, Harold; Burritt, Arthur; Schroeder, Daniel; Balian, Harry; Cline, Leonard; Sanders, Carleen; Ennis, Rick

Subject:

FEA of Degraded Salem Unit 1 AFW Piping Importance: High Hello John, Here is the FEA we've been discussing. Note that PSEG is still reviewing but they have provided this copy which will most likely not change. Please review this and let us know what you think. Thanks.

Tim OHara

- riginal Message -----

O From: Berrick, Howard G. [1]

Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 2:11 PM To: Schroeder, Daniel L.; OHara, Timothy

Subject:

Evaluation of Degraded Underground Auxiliary Feedwater Piping (SIA Report 1000494_301_RC)

Importance: High Attached ids the SIA Report RE: Evaluation of Degraded Underground Auxiliary Feedwater Piping Please note: This report has not been through the PSEG Owners Acceptance or Third Party Review process.

Howard Berrick PSEG Nuclear LLC Salem Regulatory Assurance PSEG Nuclear - Salem Generating Stations (W) 856-339-1862 (Fax) 856-339-1

• Br (b)(6)~

2

<<1000494_301_RC.doc>>

The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is intended solely for use by the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or a person designated as responsible for delivering such messages to the intended recipient, you are not authorized to disclose, copy, distribute or retain this message, in whole or in part, without written authorization from PSEG. This e-mail may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you have received this message in error; please notify the sender immediately. This notice is included in all e-mail messages leaving PSEG. Thank you for your cooperation.

3