ML062090497
| 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 i il Jame Dais
-Re:Re-asigmen of abls 3..2.4-XPage 1 1 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 Mail Envelope Properties (445A59EA.FA8 : 20: 35420)
Page 1i1
Subject:
Creation Date From:
Created By:
Re: Re-assignment of Tables 3.3.2.14-X Thu, May 4, 2006 3:45 PM Peter Wen 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 nrc.gov OWGWPO01.HQGWDO01 Files MESSAGE Options Expiration Date:
Priority:
ReplyRequested:
Return Notification:
Concealed
Subject:
Security:
Size 3923 Date & Time Thursday, May 4, 2006 3:45 PM None Standard No None No 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