ML062090497

Email: (PA) Re-assignment of Tables 3.3.2.14-X

ML062090497
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	05/04/2006
From:	Wen P NRC/NRR/ADRO/DLR
To:	Patel E, Pavinich W - No Known Affiliation
References
TAC MC9669
Download: ML062090497 (3)

Text

James Davis - Re: Re-assignment of Tables 3.3.2.14-X Page i1il 1

Jameof abls 3..2.4-XPage Dais -Re:Re-asigmen From: Peter Wen To: erachp@comcast.net; wapavinich @comcast.net Date: Thu, May 4, 2006 3:45 PM

Subject:

Re: Re-assignment of Tables 3.3.2.14-X Erach/ Wayne:

OK, we will document those line items separately in sections 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 as appropriate.

Peter

>>> <wapavinich@comcast.net> 05/04/06 8:31 AM >>>

Erach, I think we should include the review in sections 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 as appropriate.

Wayne

- ------------- Original message -----------

From: erachp@comcast.net

> Peter and Wayne,

> As I was finishing up the review of section 3.3 Tables, I realized that PNPS has

> included all mechanical systems associated with nonsafety-related components

> affecting safety-related systems into sections 3.3, iresrective of the system

> being part of ESF or Steam and Power Conversion systems. These are shown in

> Tables 3.3.2-14-1 thru 3.3.2.-14-35.

> I discussed this with you, Peter, and we agreed that these Tables should be

> re-assigned from me to the appropriate team member, either yourself for section

> 3.4 systems and Wayne Pavinich for section 3.2 systems. None of section 3.1

> systems are involved. PNPS should have included these tables in the.appropriate

> sections where the non-safety related systems belong. No wonder I had over 60%

> of line items in my scope.

> Based on our discussion, I have revised the PNPS consolidated table EXCEL

> spreadsheet accordingly and have attached it to this e-mail. Please review

> these tables similarly as you review the section 3.2 or 3.4 tables.

> We should discuss and finalize how we are going to write the Audit report and

> the SER relative to these tables. Should the appropriate table review be

> included all in section 3.3, or should we really include the review in sections

> 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 as appropriate?

> We need to let Entergy know that the LRA should reflect systems in section 3 in

> the appropriate subsections where they belong and not lumped into one

> subsection.

Erach CCO: Bob Jackson; James Davis

c:\temp\GW}OOOQl .TMP Page 1i1 Mail Envelope Properties (445A59EA.FA8 : 20: 35420)

Subject:

Re: Re-assignment of Tables 3.3.2.14-X Creation Date Thu, May 4, 2006 3:45 PM From: Peter Wen Created By: PXW@nrc.gov Recipients comcast.net erachp (erachp@comcast.net) wapavinich (wapavinich @comcast.net) msn.com JacksonWR CC (Bob Jackson) nrc.gov OWGWPO01.HQGWDO01 JAD CC (James Davis)

Post Office Route comcast.net msn.com OWGWPO01.HQGWDO01 nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 3923 Thursday, May 4, 2006 3:45 PM Options Expiration Date: None Priority: Standard ReplyRequested: No Return Notification: None Concealed

Subject:

No Security: Standard Junk Mail Handling Evaluation Results Message is not eligible for Junk Mail handling Message is from an internal sender Junk Mail settings when this message was delivered Junk Mail handling disabled by User Junk Mail handling disabled by Administrator

c:\temp\GWIOOOO1.TMP Page2i1 Junk List is not enabled Junk Mail using personal address books is not enabled Block List is not enabled