ML102980626

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Email from O'Hara, Timothy to Amer, Frank Et Al, AFW Missile Barrier.
ML102980626
Person / Time
Site: Salem, Hope Creek  PSEG icon.png
Issue date: 04/30/2010
From: O'Hara T
NRC Region 1
To: Amer F, Christopher Cahill, Conte R
NRC Region 1
References
FOIA/PA-2010-0334
Download: ML102980626 (2)


Text

OHara, Timothy --

From: OHara, Timothy 7-z/

Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 5':42 PM To: Arner, Frank; Cahill, Christopher; Conte, Richard Cc: Cline, Leonard; Burritt, Arthur

Subject:

RE: AFW Missile Barrier

Everyone, This was discussed with Allan Johnson, Acting Engineering Director, this afternoon. They are planning on installing this shield within the next 2 - weeks. The explanation was that installing the shield is a conservative measure which will increas the plants margin for potential tornado missle incidents. It has been delayed because the risk is low and their evaluation was that it was not essential for operability.

Thanks for the help, Frank.

Tim


Original Message -----.

From: Arner, Frank Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 3:11 PM To: Cahill, Christopher; OHara, Timothy; Conte, Richard Cc: Cline, Leonard; Burritt, Arthur

Subject:

RE: AFW Missile Barrier I would agree that this Order or Technical Evaluation is the process they are using to evaluate the existing condition to see whether it is acceptable or not. I am not sure if they still plan to install the protective plate, but they have evaluted the issue as being non-credible with respect to missile generated impact to the new piping.

If this is the case, and it sounds somewhat reasonable just from a read, then 50.59 would screen out even without the plate. However, as I understood it Tim they still plan on installing it in some reasonable timeframe.

If we agree with the Tech Eval, it may not be a nonconforming condition as we had discussed earlier.

Frank

- Original


Message -----

From: Cahill, Christopher Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 2:21 PM To: OHara, Timothy; Conte, Richard; Arner, Frank Cc: Cline, Leonard; Burritt, Arthur

Subject:

RE: AFW Missile Barrier

Tim, This seem to be a consistent approach as described in USFAR, page 3.5-4 for unprotected openings. From my read on the attachment you sent, they concluded that it wasn't needed but they were including it to be conservative, a nice-to-have vs a need-to-have. It seems that the deviation from the 50.59 is in their corrective action in the form of Order 000060089848. Do you agree that their approach is acceptable lAW the USFAR? If the approach is acceptable in accordance with the USFAR, what is the issue?

Chris Original Message -----

From: OHara, Timothy 1/>

.1 Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 12:01 PM To: Arner, Frank; Cahill, Christopher Cc: Conte, Richard; Schroeder, Daniel

Subject:

FW: AFW Missile Barrier Chris & Frank, The DCP and the 50.59 for this piping mod. says they need a missle shield. The attached document is PSEGs evaluation that they don't need to do what the DCP and 50.59 said because the probability of damage is low.

This has not been entered into the corrective action process and they don't intend to do so.

Any thoughts or opinions on this?

Tim OHara Original Message -----

From: Berrick, Howard G. [1]

Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 11:55 AM To: OHara, Timothy

Subject:

AFW Missile Barrier Per your request

<<AFW Missile Barrier.rtf>>

The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is intended solely for use by the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or a person designated as responsible for delivering such messages to the intended recipient, you are not authorized to disclose, copy, distribute or retain this message, in whole or in part, without written authorization from PSEG. This e-mail may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately. This notice is included in all e-mail messages leaving PSEG. Thank you for your cooperation.

2