ML16060A163: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| number = ML16060A163 | | number = ML16060A163 | ||
| issue date = 02/24/2016 | | issue date = 02/24/2016 | ||
| title = Summary of Telepone Conversation | | title = Summary of Telepone Conversation Between Michael Mulligan, Private Citizen, and Mandy Halter & Richard Barkley of NRC Region I Regarding Hope Creek SW Pump Discharge Isolation Valve HEAHV-2198C | ||
| author name = Barkley R | | author name = Barkley R | ||
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-I/DRP/PB3 | | author affiliation = NRC/RGN-I/DRP/PB3 | ||
| addressee name = | | addressee name = | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| page count = 1 | | page count = 1 | ||
}} | }} | ||
=Text= | |||
{{#Wiki_filter:Date: February 24, 2016 Author: Richard S. Barkley | |||
==Subject:== | |||
==SUMMARY== | |||
OF TELEPONE CONVERSATION BETWEEN MICHAEL MULLIGAN, PRIVATE CITIZEN, AND MANDY HALTER & RICHARD BARKLEY OF NRC REGION I REGARDING HOPE CREEK SW PUMP DISCHARGE ISOLATION VALVE EAHV-2198C Mandy and I contacted Michael Mulligan regarding his concerns with a specific service water butterfly valve at Hope Creek that was installed backward from its intended position in 2013 and was the subject of a non-cited violation (NCV) in 2015 during the NRCs Component Design Basis Inspection. This NCV was contested in December 2015, but the NRC denied PSEGs request to re-categorize the NCV as a minor violation in a letter issued in February 2016. PSEG request (ADAMS No. ML15362A564) and the NRC denial (ML16040A345) were provided to Mr. | |||
Mulligan prior to the call. | |||
Mr. Mulligan asked several questions regarding this issue, most particularly the reasons why PSEG changed the normal orientation of this (and other identical SW valves) prior to 2013 as well as questions that centered on the performance of the specific valve in question, the actions of PSEG engineers involved in this matter, and the need to conduct a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation regarding the orientation change made prior to 2013. Mr. Mulligan indicated that he is concerned with performance at PSEG based on several events he has read about in the last few years, including this matter. | |||
At the conclusion of the call, Mr. Mulligan requested that we provide information to him via email regarding when these SW valves (EAHV-2198 A, B, C & D) were originally installed, when the decision was made to reverse the orientation of all of these valves, and whether a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation was conducted for this change. | |||
Date: February 24, 2016 Author: Richard S. Barkley | |||
==Subject:== | |||
==SUMMARY== | |||
OF TELEPONE CONVERSATION BETWEEN MICHAEL MULLIGAN, PRIVATE CITIZEN, AND MANDY HALTER & RICHARD BARKLEY OF NRC REGION I REGARDING HOPE CREEK SW PUMP DISCHARGE ISOLATION VALVE EAHV-2198C Mandy and I contacted Michael Mulligan regarding his concerns with a specific service water butterfly valve at Hope Creek that was installed backward from its intended position in 2013 and was the subject of a non-cited violation (NCV) in 2015 during the NRCs Component Design Basis Inspection. This NCV was contested in December 2015, but the NRC denied PSEGs request to re-categorize the NCV as a minor violation in a letter issued in February 2016. PSEG request (ADAMS No. ML15362A564) and the NRC denial (ML16040A345) were provided to Mr. | |||
Mulligan prior to the call. | |||
Mr. Mulligan asked several questions regarding this issue, most particularly the reasons why PSEG changed the normal orientation of this (and other identical SW valves) prior to 2013 as well as questions that centered on the performance of the specific valve in question, the actions of PSEG engineers involved in this matter, and the need to conduct a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation regarding the orientation change made prior to 2013. Mr. Mulligan indicated that he is concerned with performance at PSEG based on several events he has read about in the last few years, including this matter. | |||
At the conclusion of the call, Mr. Mulligan requested that we provide information to him via email regarding when these SW valves (EAHV-2198 A, B, C & D) were originally installed, when the decision was made to reverse the orientation of all of these valves, and whether a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation was conducted for this change.}} | |||
Latest revision as of 23:29, 30 October 2019
| ML16060A163 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 02/24/2016 |
| From: | Barkley R Reactor Projects Branch 3 |
| To: | |
| BOWER, FL | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16053A157 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML16060A163 (1) | |
Text
Date: February 24, 2016 Author: Richard S. Barkley
Subject:
SUMMARY
OF TELEPONE CONVERSATION BETWEEN MICHAEL MULLIGAN, PRIVATE CITIZEN, AND MANDY HALTER & RICHARD BARKLEY OF NRC REGION I REGARDING HOPE CREEK SW PUMP DISCHARGE ISOLATION VALVE EAHV-2198C Mandy and I contacted Michael Mulligan regarding his concerns with a specific service water butterfly valve at Hope Creek that was installed backward from its intended position in 2013 and was the subject of a non-cited violation (NCV) in 2015 during the NRCs Component Design Basis Inspection. This NCV was contested in December 2015, but the NRC denied PSEGs request to re-categorize the NCV as a minor violation in a letter issued in February 2016. PSEG request (ADAMS No. ML15362A564) and the NRC denial (ML16040A345) were provided to Mr.
Mulligan prior to the call.
Mr. Mulligan asked several questions regarding this issue, most particularly the reasons why PSEG changed the normal orientation of this (and other identical SW valves) prior to 2013 as well as questions that centered on the performance of the specific valve in question, the actions of PSEG engineers involved in this matter, and the need to conduct a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation regarding the orientation change made prior to 2013. Mr. Mulligan indicated that he is concerned with performance at PSEG based on several events he has read about in the last few years, including this matter.
At the conclusion of the call, Mr. Mulligan requested that we provide information to him via email regarding when these SW valves (EAHV-2198 A, B, C & D) were originally installed, when the decision was made to reverse the orientation of all of these valves, and whether a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation was conducted for this change.
Date: February 24, 2016 Author: Richard S. Barkley
Subject:
SUMMARY
OF TELEPONE CONVERSATION BETWEEN MICHAEL MULLIGAN, PRIVATE CITIZEN, AND MANDY HALTER & RICHARD BARKLEY OF NRC REGION I REGARDING HOPE CREEK SW PUMP DISCHARGE ISOLATION VALVE EAHV-2198C Mandy and I contacted Michael Mulligan regarding his concerns with a specific service water butterfly valve at Hope Creek that was installed backward from its intended position in 2013 and was the subject of a non-cited violation (NCV) in 2015 during the NRCs Component Design Basis Inspection. This NCV was contested in December 2015, but the NRC denied PSEGs request to re-categorize the NCV as a minor violation in a letter issued in February 2016. PSEG request (ADAMS No. ML15362A564) and the NRC denial (ML16040A345) were provided to Mr.
Mulligan prior to the call.
Mr. Mulligan asked several questions regarding this issue, most particularly the reasons why PSEG changed the normal orientation of this (and other identical SW valves) prior to 2013 as well as questions that centered on the performance of the specific valve in question, the actions of PSEG engineers involved in this matter, and the need to conduct a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation regarding the orientation change made prior to 2013. Mr. Mulligan indicated that he is concerned with performance at PSEG based on several events he has read about in the last few years, including this matter.
At the conclusion of the call, Mr. Mulligan requested that we provide information to him via email regarding when these SW valves (EAHV-2198 A, B, C & D) were originally installed, when the decision was made to reverse the orientation of all of these valves, and whether a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation was conducted for this change.