ML102950236: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:Zlev, Tracey From: Sent: To: | {{#Wiki_filter:Zlev, Tracey From: Burritt, Arthur C2.* | ||
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 5:17 PM To: 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 | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
Branch 3 Status 4/29/10 Attachments: 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, 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 | Smart samples o Verify repairs to the control air system elbow that was replaced (how will PSEG certify the repair) - | ||
-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 | 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 | ||
AL3=IX>io.J7N3 AFW follow-up issues* Verify hydro/pressure test is code compliant | * Design records for as installed AFW piping on Unit 1 & 2 not found h*Mnewm n Intftusrexd was fetww In accordance wfth the rJo~e Einmpiions IMM"M- d 171S~ 1 A-tc)03 | ||
-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 | p 0t Y 4 | ||
-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 | Outside of Scope BRANCH 3 DAILY 4/29/10 STATUS Highlighted items were discussed at DRPIDRS Coordination meeting T.. | ||
-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 | Outside OTScope BOLD items are new W,,,, Coerae7Da Af666,7-X>O 'AL2=2of3>O.11L: AL3=IX>io.J7N3 AFW follow-up issues | ||
-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 | * 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. | ||
-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 | * Evaluate the 50.59 for AFW modifications - Scroeder reviewed no significant technical concerns or Issues | ||
-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 | * 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 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 A 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}} | ||
Revision as of 07:26, 13 November 2019
| 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: Burritt, Arthur C2.*
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 5:17 PM To: 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
Subject:
Branch 3 Status 4/29/10 Attachments: 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 Intftusrexd was fetww In accordance wfth the rJo~e Einmpiions IMM"M- d 171S~ 1 A-tc)03
p 0t Y 4
Outside of Scope BRANCH 3 DAILY 4/29/10 STATUS Highlighted items were discussed at DRPIDRS Coordination meeting T..
Outside OTScope BOLD items are new W,,,, Coerae7Da Af666,7-X>O '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 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 A 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