ML102940088
| ML102940088 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 04/25/2010 |
| From: | Modes M Division of Nuclear Materials Safety I |
| To: | O'Hara T Division of Nuclear Materials Safety I |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2010-0334 | |
| Download: ML102940088 (1) | |
Text
Caponiti, Kathleen From:
Modes, Michael Sent:
Sunday, April 25, 2010 11:48 PM To:
OHara, Timothy; Lupold, Timothy Cc:
Conte, Richard
Subject:
RE: Salem Unit 1 AFW (New Piping) Hydro Question They appear to be in compliance.
NRC approved Code Case N-416-3, allows an operational pressure test in leu of a hydrostatic test. They could have invoked the Code Case for the entire system however it is prudent to do the more rigorous hydrostatic test for the portion of the system that you will never see again.
From: OHara, Timothy Sent: Sunday, April 25, 0 1:51 AM To: Modes, Michael; Lupold, Timothy Cc: Conte, Richard
Subject:
Salem Unit 1 AFW (New Piping) Hydro Question Hello Mike and Tim, Salem Unit 1 has tested the buried portion only of the new piping with a hydro completed last night. They held test pressure between 1315 - 1380 for a four hour period, did a VT-2 inspection and depressurized. They did this portion first, thinking they needed to coat and cure the new piping and backfill the excavated area which they completed last night.
The remainder of the new piping (above ground) is still being installed but they say this piping only needs to be tested with an operational pressure test. They predict approximately 1190 psi for this test, but the pressure will be what the AFW pump provides. When both portions are done they will make up one continuous piping run in each header.
I don't see this distinction (hydro on one part and operational pressure test on another part of the same piping system) in the Code - my sense tells me that all of the new piping should be hydroed at the same pressure. At present, I don't think they will be ready for the test on the new above ground piping until sometime Tuesday, but if we collectively see this as a problem we need to get our objection(s) on the table soon - hopefully on Monday AM or before.
They use the 1998 Code edition with the 2000 addenda. This is safety related Class 3 piping in this portion of the system. The system switches to Class 2 after the stop-check isolation valve near the SG.
I'll appreciate any guidance or opinions you can provide. I'm at Salem today and can be reached at 609-238-9389 if anyone wants to talk about this. Thanks for any help anyone can provide.
Tim OHara
,rA I