ML12213A350

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
E-mail from E. Sanchez Santiago to M. Murphy, Et Al, Subject: FW: NRC Technical Reviewer Focus Questions
ML12213A350
Person / Time
Site: Davis Besse Cleveland Electric icon.png
Issue date: 11/09/2011
From: Sanchez-Santiago E
NRC/RGN-III/DRS/EB1
To: Timothy Lupold, Murphy M, Jamnes Cameron
NRC/NRR/DE/EMCB, NRC/RGN-III
References
FOIA/PA-2012-0121
Download: ML12213A350 (2)


Text

Lupold, Timothy From: Sanchez Santiago, Elba Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 8:27 AM To: Murphy, Martin; Lupold, Timothy; Cameron, Jamnes; Wilson, Adam; Kimble, Daniel; Rutkowski, John; Hills, David; Rezai, Ali; Gonzalez, Hipolito; Thorp, John; Haskell, Russell; Nolan, Ryan; Mahoney, Michael; Hernandez, Pete; Mitlyng, Viktoria; Chandrathil, Prema; Neurauter, James; Cardona-Morales, Pedro; Briley, Thomas; CuadradoDeJesus, Samuel; Zimmerman, Jacob; Thomas, George; Hoang, Dan; Logaras, Harral; Barker, Allan; Auluck, Rajender; Sheikh, Abdul; Lehman, Bryce; Morey, Dennis; Snyder, Amy; Wiebe, Joel; Bozga, John; Meghani, Vijay; Stone, AnnMarie; Smagacz, Phillip; Davis-BesseHearingFile Resource; Riley (OCA), Timothy Cc: Reynolds, Steven; West, Steven; OBrien, Kenneth; Shear, Gary

Subject:

FW: NRC Technical Reviewer Focus Questions Attachments: NRC Technical Reviewer Focus Questions.docx Good Morning, Attached are the focus questions Dave discussed during our group conference call. Also I updated the SharePoint site to include the latest calculation as well as the answers to some of the questions we provided to the licensee earlier this week. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Thanks, Elba From: Hills, David Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 2:21 PM To: Sanchez Santiago, Elba

Subject:

NRC Technical Reviewer Focus Questions

Elba, We discussed this during today's internal focus group conference call. Please forward to our entire focus group.
Thanks,

- Dave 1 .%

Davis Besse Shield Building Issue NRC Technical Reviewer Focus Questions 11/7/11

1. Does the licensee's extent of condition (scope of mapping and core bores) provide an acceptable systematic, representative sample that accurately characterizes the condition of the shield building (or at least sufficiently bounds the condition for analysis)? Why or why not?
2. Does the licensee's analysis provide reasonable assurance that the shield building will perform its design function? Why or why not?
a. If yes, does the shield building remain in conformance with all licensing and design basis requirements including required Codes and required safety margins? Note that if the shield building is functional but nonconforming, then the licensee would be able to restart the plant, but would be expected to have a plan in place to restore conformance (additional analysis, repairs, or license amendment) at the next reasonable opportunity.
3. Has the licensee provided reasonable assurance that the shield building will remain capable of performing its design function in the near and distant future (i.e. the condition will not worsen)? Why or why not? If not, are we comfortable until the next refuel outage (May 2012) and why, and what additional actions from the licensee, if any, do we think are necessary going forward?