ML102950236: 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 2: | Line 2: | ||
| number = ML102950236 | | number = ML102950236 | ||
| issue date = 04/29/2010 | | issue date = 04/29/2010 | ||
| title = E-Mail from Burritt to | | title = E-Mail from Burritt to Ohara Et Al., Branch 3 Status 4/29/10 | ||
| author name = Burritt A | | author name = Burritt A | ||
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-I | | author affiliation = NRC/RGN-I | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:Zlev, Tracey From: Sent: To: | {{#Wiki_filter:Zlev, Tracey From: | ||
Sent: | |||
To: | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
Attachments: | Attachments: | ||
Burritt, Arthur Thursday, April 29, 2010 5:17 PM OHara, Timothy; Conte, Richard; Gray, Harold; Balian, Harry; Cline, 'Leonard; DeBoer, Joseph; Douglas, Christopher; Ennis, Rick; Johnson, Jonathan; Kern, Ludwig; Miller, Ed;Moore, Ross; Patel, Amar; Raymond, William; Schroeder, Daniel; Turilin, Andrey; Welling, Blake Branch 3 Status 4/29/10 B3-Status 4-29-10doc See attached The following are the remaining open AFW inspection questions as of a few days-ago | Burritt, Arthur C2.* | ||
-O'Hara, determined approach was acceptable, received test records but still needs to verify test results. PSEG will also provide the leak check procedure by 4/27 am.Smart samples o Verify repairs to the control air system elbow that was replaced (how will PSEG certify the repair) -O'Hara, PSEG adding more detail to description of document, to provide by 4/27 PM o Verify control air extent of condition | Thursday, April 29, 2010 5:17 PM OHara, Timothy; Conte, Richard; Gray, Harold; Balian, Harry; Cline, 'Leonard; DeBoer, Joseph; Douglas, Christopher; Ennis, Rick; Johnson, Jonathan; Kern, Ludwig; Miller, Ed; Moore, Ross; Patel, Amar; Raymond, William; Schroeder, Daniel; Turilin, Andrey; Welling, Blake Branch 3 Status 4/29/10 B3-Status 4-29-10doc See attached The following are the remaining open AFW inspection questions as of a few days-ago Verify hydro/pressure test is code compliant - O'Hara, determined approach was acceptable, received test records but still needs to verify test results. PSEG will also provide the leak check procedure by 4/27 am. | ||
-O'Hara o Backfill procedure reviews to verify coating and backfill cure times -O'Hara, PSEG to provide by 4/27 pm o Verify control air clamping material -O'Hara, PSEG to provide supporting document 4127 am o AFW pipe weld records -O'Hara, PSEG to assess status'of documents by 4/27 pm | Smart samples o | ||
AL3=IX>io.J7N3 AFW follow-up issues | Verify repairs to the control air system elbow that was replaced (how will PSEG certify the repair) - | ||
-O'Hara, determined approach was acceptable, received test records but still needs to verify test results. PSEG will also provide'the leak check procedure 4127 am. | O'Hara, PSEG adding more detail to description of document, to provide by 4/27 PM o | ||
-Scroeder reviewed no significant technical concerns or Issues | Verify control air extent of condition - O'Hara o | ||
-O'Hara o Backfill procedure reviews to verify coating and backfill cure times -O'Hara, PSEG to provide by 4/27 pm o Verify control air clamping material -O'Hara, PSEG to provide supporting document 4/27 am o AFW pipe weld records -O'Hara, PSEG to assess status of documents by 4/27 pm Degraded Equipment | Backfill procedure reviews to verify coating and backfill cure times - O'Hara, PSEG to provide by 4/27 pm o | ||
-Cahill, complete, no concerns | Verify control air clamping material - O'Hara, PSEG to provide supporting document 4127 am o | ||
-discussions ongoing, no apparent ongoing compliance issues.Operability, Initial assessment Unit 2 was that it is in better condition based on newer piping; 1994 inspection that identified intact coating; and ISI code gives more allowance to an operating unit (can take credit for up to 90% of the yield Stress). | AFW pipe weld records - O'Hara, PSEG to assess status'of documents by 4/27 pm Design records for as installed AFW piping on Unit 1 & 2 not found h*Mnewm n In tft usrexd was fetww In accordance wfth the rJo~e Einmpiions 171S~ | ||
-Schroeder no significant technical issues or concerns 4 Confirm the finite element analysis for the Unit 1 as found condition is acceptable including the use of appropriate methods and assumptions | IMM"M-d A-tc )03 1 | ||
-Gray, O'Hara, and HQ reviewed, no significant technical issues or concerns Outside of Scope~A0.0onavi iteMS Ulu L!Status Board Items: Salem 1, AFW buried piping generic communications Outside of Scope t | |||
p t 0 | |||
Y Outside of Scope BRANCH 3 DAILY STATUS 4/29/10 4 | |||
Highlighted items were discussed at DRPIDRS Coordination meeting T. | |||
BOLD items are new Outside OT Scope W,,,, | |||
Coerae7Da X>O Af666,7- | |||
'AL2=2of3>O.11L: | |||
AL3=IX>io.J7N3 AFW follow-up issues Verify hydro/pressure test is code compliant - O'Hara, determined approach was acceptable, received test records but still needs to verify test results. PSEG will also provide'the leak check procedure 4127 am. | |||
Evaluate the 50.59 for AFW modifications - Scroeder reviewed no significant technical concerns or Issues Smart samples o | |||
Verify repairs to the control air system elbow that was replaced (how will PSEG certify the repair) - O'Hara, PSEG adding more detail to description of document, to provide by 4127 PM o | |||
Verify control air extent of condition - O'Hara o | |||
Backfill procedure reviews to verify coating and backfill cure times - O'Hara, PSEG to provide by 4/27 pm o | |||
Verify control air clamping material - O'Hara, PSEG to provide supporting document 4/27 am o | |||
AFW pipe weld records - O'Hara, PSEG to assess status of documents by 4/27 pm Degraded Equipment Design records for as installed AFW piping on Unit 1 & 2 not found Outside of Scope | |||
Outside of Scope A | |||
U*nit 2 AFW Testinq - PSEG determined that they did not perform ASME code required pressure drop test for the buried sections of the S22 and 24 headers. | |||
9 Confirm the PSEG risk assessment to delay AFW testing for 1 year is reasonable - Cahill, complete, no concerns Evaluate if performing a risk assessment to meet Technical Specification 4.0.5 is appropriate if a test was never performed verses missed - Conte/Ennis - discussions ongoing, no apparent ongoing compliance issues. | |||
Operability, Initial assessment Unit 2 was that it is in better condition based on newer piping; 1994 inspection that identified intact coating; and ISI code gives more allowance to an operating unit (can take credit for up to 90% of the yield Stress). | |||
Evaluate the Unit 2 AFW extent of condition operability assessment - Schroeder no significant technical issues or concerns 4 | |||
Confirm the finite element analysis for the Unit 1 as found condition is acceptable including the use of appropriate methods and assumptions - Gray, O'Hara, and HQ reviewed, no significant technical issues or concerns Outside of Scope | |||
~A0.0onavi iteMS Ulu L!Status Board Items: | |||
Salem 1, AFW buried piping generic communications Outside of Scope t | |||
Outside of Seope 2}} | Outside of Seope 2}} | ||
Latest revision as of 02:21, 14 January 2025
| ML102950236 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem |
| Issue date: | 04/29/2010 |
| From: | Arthur Burritt NRC Region 1 |
| To: | Conte R, Gray H, O'Hara T Engineering Region 1 Branch 1 |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2010-0334 | |
| Download: ML102950236 (5) | |
Text
Zlev, Tracey From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Burritt, Arthur C2.*
Thursday, April 29, 2010 5:17 PM OHara, Timothy; Conte, Richard; Gray, Harold; Balian, Harry; Cline, 'Leonard; DeBoer, Joseph; Douglas, Christopher; Ennis, Rick; Johnson, Jonathan; Kern, Ludwig; Miller, Ed; Moore, Ross; Patel, Amar; Raymond, William; Schroeder, Daniel; Turilin, Andrey; Welling, Blake Branch 3 Status 4/29/10 B3-Status 4-29-10doc See attached The following are the remaining open AFW inspection questions as of a few days-ago Verify hydro/pressure test is code compliant - O'Hara, determined approach was acceptable, received test records but still needs to verify test results. PSEG will also provide the leak check procedure by 4/27 am.
Smart samples o
Verify repairs to the control air system elbow that was replaced (how will PSEG certify the repair) -
O'Hara, PSEG adding more detail to description of document, to provide by 4/27 PM o
Verify control air extent of condition - O'Hara o
Backfill procedure reviews to verify coating and backfill cure times - O'Hara, PSEG to provide by 4/27 pm o
Verify control air clamping material - O'Hara, PSEG to provide supporting document 4127 am o
AFW pipe weld records - O'Hara, PSEG to assess status'of documents by 4/27 pm Design records for as installed AFW piping on Unit 1 & 2 not found h*Mnewm n In tft usrexd was fetww In accordance wfth the rJo~e Einmpiions 171S~
IMM"M-d A-tc )03 1
p t 0
Y Outside of Scope BRANCH 3 DAILY STATUS 4/29/10 4
Highlighted items were discussed at DRPIDRS Coordination meeting T.
BOLD items are new Outside OT Scope W,,,,
Coerae7Da X>O Af666,7-
'AL2=2of3>O.11L:
AL3=IX>io.J7N3 AFW follow-up issues Verify hydro/pressure test is code compliant - O'Hara, determined approach was acceptable, received test records but still needs to verify test results. PSEG will also provide'the leak check procedure 4127 am.
Evaluate the 50.59 for AFW modifications - Scroeder reviewed no significant technical concerns or Issues Smart samples o
Verify repairs to the control air system elbow that was replaced (how will PSEG certify the repair) - O'Hara, PSEG adding more detail to description of document, to provide by 4127 PM o
Verify control air extent of condition - O'Hara o
Backfill procedure reviews to verify coating and backfill cure times - O'Hara, PSEG to provide by 4/27 pm o
Verify control air clamping material - O'Hara, PSEG to provide supporting document 4/27 am o
AFW pipe weld records - O'Hara, PSEG to assess status of documents by 4/27 pm Degraded Equipment Design records for as installed AFW piping on Unit 1 & 2 not found Outside of Scope
Outside of Scope A
U*nit 2 AFW Testinq - PSEG determined that they did not perform ASME code required pressure drop test for the buried sections of the S22 and 24 headers.
9 Confirm the PSEG risk assessment to delay AFW testing for 1 year is reasonable - Cahill, complete, no concerns Evaluate if performing a risk assessment to meet Technical Specification 4.0.5 is appropriate if a test was never performed verses missed - Conte/Ennis - discussions ongoing, no apparent ongoing compliance issues.
Operability, Initial assessment Unit 2 was that it is in better condition based on newer piping; 1994 inspection that identified intact coating; and ISI code gives more allowance to an operating unit (can take credit for up to 90% of the yield Stress).
Evaluate the Unit 2 AFW extent of condition operability assessment - Schroeder no significant technical issues or concerns 4
Confirm the finite element analysis for the Unit 1 as found condition is acceptable including the use of appropriate methods and assumptions - Gray, O'Hara, and HQ reviewed, no significant technical issues or concerns Outside of Scope
~A0.0onavi iteMS Ulu L!Status Board Items:
Salem 1, AFW buried piping generic communications Outside of Scope t
Outside of Seope 2