ML11263A067

E-mail from D. Doyle, NRR to R. Gallucci, NRR, on Salem/Hope Creek Dseis Comments

ML11263A067
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	02/09/2011
From:	Dan Doyle Division of License Renewal
To:	Gallucci R NRC/NRR/DRA
References
FOIA/PA-2011-0113
Download: ML11263A067 (2)

Text

Doyle, Daniel From: Doyle, Daniel Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 8:38 AM To: Gallucci, Ray Cc: Wentzel, Michael; Perkins, Leslie; Harrison, Donnie

Subject:

RE: Salem/Hope Creek DSEIS Comments Categories: Salem Hope Creek Ok, I'll follow up with one of the tech branches in DLR. Thanks for the quick response.

Dan Doyle Project Manager Division of License Renewal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission daniel.dovle*.nrc.pov (301) 415-3748 From: Gallucci, Ray Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 8:30 AM To: Doyle, Daniel Cc: Wentzel, Michael; Perkins, Leslie; Harrison, Donnie

Subject:

RE: Salem/Hope Creek DSEIS Comments Unfortunately, there is no discussion about a basemat for Hope Creek as there was for Salem in their submittal, other than the following: "DRYWELL (DW) SHELL MELT-THROUGH FAILURE DUE TO CONTAIMENT FAILURE - This event assumes immediate failure of containment due to core melt-through, which implies that as soon as molten corium contacts the DW inner liner, containment failure is guaranteed. There was no feasible SAMA identified for this event." This only explains why no SAMA was considered. The closest I could find as to why they might not have a basemat was their citing of the RHR system as effective against structural failure of containment, and I've inserted that in the attached. The answer may be related to the unique containment structure of a BWR, but I will have to punt that to someone else more familiar with the details of BWR structural integrity.

From: Doyle, Daniel Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 8:06 AM To: Gallucci, Ray Cc: Wentzel, Michael; Perkins, Leslie

Subject:

RE: Salem/Hope Creek DSEIS Comments

Ray, Can you take another look at comment number 2? The question is about Hope Creek (HCGS) but in your response, you refer to Salem. The other thing is that they were asking why there is no basemat system at Hope Creek but your answer talks about why basemat melt-through is unlikely (at Salem). Can you please revise this response? Thanks Dan Doyle Project Manager Division of License Renewal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission daniel.dovle(a.nrc.lov 24

(301) 415-3748 From: Gallucci, Ray Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 3:17 PM To: Doyle, Daniel Cc: Harrison, Donnie; Parillo, John

Subject:

FW: Salem/Hope Creek DSEIS Comments What I sent to Leslie. I do not know her plans for the two "halves" I did not answer.

From: Gallucci, Ray Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 3:46 PM To: Perkins, Leslie Cc: Harrison, Donnie; Parillo, John; 'Short, Steve M'; Coles, Garill A; Schmitt, Bruce E

Subject:

RE: Salem/Hope Creek DSEIS Comments I've attempted to answer the ones I can in the attached (in red), which leaves two "halves" (#1, comment 1; and #4, comment 2) to be answered (TBA). I'm not sure who could answer these. If you still want to meet with me, Donnie and John, let me know.

From: Perkins, Leslie Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 11:40 AM To: Gallucci, Ray

Subject:

Salem/Hope Creek DSEIS Comments Hi Ray, I received public comments on the Salem and Hope Creek DSEIS regarding SAMA. Attached are the comments for you to review I would to get to together to with you to discuss further. Let me know a good time that I can stop by.

Thanks Leslie Perkins Project Manager Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-2375 25