ML102940090: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:Caponiti, Kathleen From: | {{#Wiki_filter:Caponiti, Kathleen From: | ||
Sent: | Conte, Richard.A Sent: | ||
Monday, May Oil*,,', 4:'06 PM To: | |||
Alley, David | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
Latest revision as of 02:23, 14 January 2025
| ML102940090 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 05/03/2010 |
| From: | Conte R Division of Nuclear Materials Safety I |
| To: | David Alley Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2010-0334 | |
| Download: ML102940090 (1) | |
Text
Caponiti, Kathleen From:
Conte, Richard.A Sent:
Monday, May Oil*,,', 4:'06 PM To:
Alley, David
Subject:
Followup Question The downrate in pressure to 1275 was to support a new min wall thickness. The tech eval says they never exceeded that pressure during system operations. I can give you details later. It was mostly done in conjunction with the Finite Element Analysis to support past operability on unit 1.
They are also reasoning that if the information they have on Unit 2 supports that coating was installed (albeit limited information), then Unit 2 can't be worse off than Unit 1; and, if Unit 1 piping has structural integrity of the pipe, then so does Unit 2.
1