ML102940085
| ML102940085 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 04/07/2010 |
| From: | Modes M Division of Nuclear Materials Safety I |
| To: | Conte R, O'Hara T, Darrell Roberts, Wilson P Division of Nuclear Materials Safety I |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2010-0334 | |
| Download: ML102940085 (1) | |
Text
Schroeder, Daniel From:
Modes, Michael Sent:
Wednesday, April 07, 2010 5:43 PM To:
OHara, Timothy; Conte, Richard; Roberts, Darrell; Wilson, Peter Cc:
Schroeder, Daniel; Balian, Harry; Burritt, Arthur; Cline, Leonard; Lupold, Timothy
Subject:
RE: Update On Salem AFW Condition I fully support Tim's position. There is no technical basis for accepting this unknown, unquantified, and unqualified technology. We have absolutely no way of knowing what the NDE uncertainty is in the 35% degradation number.
I have reached out to NRR, Tim Lupold, by voice mail and email with an explanation of the licensee's tentative position on the acceptability of the guided wave results. I hope to connect with Tim tomorrow, set up a call with Tim at the site, and then "offer" to discuss our unified concerns with the licensee.
Perhaps if PSEG hears skepticism from more then one source they will hue to a more conservative approach.
From: OHara, Timothy Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 5:31 PM To: Modes, Michael; Conte, Richard; Roberts, Darrell; Wilson, Peter Cc: Schroeder, Daniel; Balian, Harry; Burritt, Arthur; Cline, Leonard
Subject:
Update On Salem AFW Condition Gentlemen, PSEG has completed excavating 2 additional areas and they plan on performing additional Guided Wave (GW) readings on the AFW pipes. The condition of the AFW (#12,#14), Plant Air headers (2) and Control Air pipe (1) have seen the same environmental conditions and appear to be degraded. At present, PSEG is concentrating only on the AFW piping. Some additional code UT data will be collected tonight and tomorrow.
I have explained to several people (Engineering, Licensisng and License Renewal) here on site that the NRC will place no credibility on the GW readings due to it being an unqualified process. I've communicated our position that the entire pipe has experienced a coating failure and that a qualified code UT should be completed on the pipes after all exfoliation has been removed from the pipes. Of course, this would mean digging up all of the AFW piping. I've explained that the failed coating potentially affects the entire pipe, however, they are continuing to take additional GW readings.
I've also explained our position that the code does not recognize the GW readings and they cannot be credited for dimensions as part of a repair. The ISI Program Manager acknowledges this and understands the concern.
I believe they are working on an operability document which does less than I've explained above based, at least, partially on GW readings. I will look at their proposal(s) when it is completed. I can't forecast a date for this at this time and their strategy may change.
As a back up strategy, I did hear today that PSEG had ordered replacement pipe.-
Many questions remain to be answered and understood, however, this outage is just 24 days in duration and the pressure will increase the closer they get to the end, on approximately 4/28/10.
More to follow, Tim OHara 1