ML102980388: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Gray,,,, Harold -.. .From: OHara, Timothy /Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 9:37 AM To: Gray, Harold  
{{#Wiki_filter:Gray,,,, Harold                                                                                   -     .. .
From:                       OHara, Timothy           /*    /
Sent:                       Wednesday, May 26, 2010 9:37 AM To:                         Gray, Harold


==Subject:==
==Subject:==
RE: Salem Drop-in Meeting -return Messages Harold, FYI.As we discussed this morning, PSEG did receive an NOV in 2007 (covering both Salem Unit 1 and Unit 2) for failing to submit relief requests for missed or incomplete inspections on the 2nd ISI interval.
RE: Salem Drop-in Meeting - return Messages
Their NOV response says they did corrective actions to address the concerns and that they have changed procedures to ensure the inspections are completed  
: Harold, FYI.
-however, they apparently did not identify that they had not been doing the required AFW pressure tests (which are in service inspections).
As we discussed this morning, PSEG did receive an NOV in 2007 (covering both Salem Unit 1 and Unit 2) for failing to submit relief requests for missed or incomplete inspections on the 2nd ISI interval. Their NOV response says they did corrective actions to address the concerns and that they have changed procedures to ensure the inspections are completed - however, they apparently did not identify that they had not been doing the required AFW pressure tests (which are in service inspections).
Any questions, email or call.Tim From: Gray, Harold Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 9:17 AM To: Roberts, Darrell Cc: Wilson, Peter; Conte, Richard; OHara, Timothy  
Any questions, email or call.
Tim From: Gray, Harold Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 9:17 AM To: Roberts, Darrell Cc: Wilson, Peter; Conte, Richard; OHara, Timothy


==Subject:==
==Subject:==
Salem Drop-in Meeting -return Messages As the Salem AFW buried pipe is a topic of the Salem Drop-in Meeting today, the following return messages for your consideration.
Salem Drop-in Meeting - return Messages As the Salem AFW buried pipe is a topic of the Salem Drop-in Meeting today, the following return messages for your consideration.
The AFW buried pipe testing was in the ISI program and a relief request was processed in the 1st interval (1st 10 year of operation), but got lost from the ISI program by the current 10 year interval.The comment is: What is being done to confirm that other items have not been lost or deleted from the ISI program?In 2001, NRC identified the failure of another PWR plant, similar to Salem, that had failed to do testing of buried piping per the ASME Code Section XI and documented it in an Inspection Report as an Enforcement Item (NCV)The comment is: This is an Operating Experience or problem identification and resolution (PI&R) issue.What is being done to identify if there are others ?Both of the above comments have been communicated from the Inspection Staff to Salem and have significance because they apply to: Program continuity (in this case, ISI), Application of Operational Experience (OE), 1_./
The AFW buried pipe testing was in the ISI program and a relief request was processed in the 1st interval (1st 10 year of operation), but got lost from the ISI program by the current 10 year interval.
The comment is: What is being done to confirm that other items have not been lost or deleted from the ISI program?
In 2001, NRC identified the failure of another PWR plant, similar to Salem, that had failed to do testing of buried piping per the ASME Code Section XI and documented it in an Inspection Report as an Enforcement Item (NCV)
The comment is: This is an Operating Experience or problem identification and resolution (PI&R) issue.
What is being done to identify if there are others ?
Both of the above comments have been communicated from the Inspection Staff to Salem and have significance because they apply to:
Program continuity (in this case, ISI),
Application of Operational Experience (OE),
1_./
 
and PI&R effectiveness.
and PI&R effectiveness.
Harold Gray, x5325 2.}}
Harold Gray, x5325 2.}}

Latest revision as of 07:17, 13 November 2019

Email from O'Hara, Timothy to Gray, Harold, Salem Drop-in Meeting - Return Messages
ML102980388
Person / Time
Site: Salem  PSEG icon.png
Issue date: 05/26/2010
From: O'Hara T
Engineering Region 1 Branch 1
To: Gray H
- No Known Affiliation
References
FOIA/PA-2010-0334
Download: ML102980388 (2)
v • d • e


Text

Gray,,,, Harold - .. .

From: OHara, Timothy /* /

Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 9:37 AM To: Gray, Harold

Subject:

RE: Salem Drop-in Meeting - return Messages

Harold, FYI.

As we discussed this morning, PSEG did receive an NOV in 2007 (covering both Salem Unit 1 and Unit 2) for failing to submit relief requests for missed or incomplete inspections on the 2nd ISI interval. Their NOV response says they did corrective actions to address the concerns and that they have changed procedures to ensure the inspections are completed - however, they apparently did not identify that they had not been doing the required AFW pressure tests (which are in service inspections).

Any questions, email or call.

Tim From: Gray, Harold Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 9:17 AM To: Roberts, Darrell Cc: Wilson, Peter; Conte, Richard; OHara, Timothy

Subject:

Salem Drop-in Meeting - return Messages As the Salem AFW buried pipe is a topic of the Salem Drop-in Meeting today, the following return messages for your consideration.

The AFW buried pipe testing was in the ISI program and a relief request was processed in the 1st interval (1st 10 year of operation), but got lost from the ISI program by the current 10 year interval.

The comment is: What is being done to confirm that other items have not been lost or deleted from the ISI program?

In 2001, NRC identified the failure of another PWR plant, similar to Salem, that had failed to do testing of buried piping per the ASME Code Section XI and documented it in an Inspection Report as an Enforcement Item (NCV)

The comment is: This is an Operating Experience or problem identification and resolution (PI&R) issue.

What is being done to identify if there are others ?

Both of the above comments have been communicated from the Inspection Staff to Salem and have significance because they apply to:

Program continuity (in this case, ISI),

Application of Operational Experience (OE),

1_./

and PI&R effectiveness.

Harold Gray, x5325 2.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML102980388&oldid=2125576"