ML12334A474
| ML12334A474 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 08/11/2011 |
| From: | Caputo C - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Jeanette Curry, Christopher Jackson Entergy Nuclear Operations, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 21523, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01 | |
| Download: ML12334A474 (1) | |
Text
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Official Hearing Exhibit In the Matter of:
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3)
ASLBP #: 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Docket #: 05000247 l 05000286 Exhibit #:
Identified:
Admitted:
Withdrawn:
Rejected:
Stricken:
Other:
NYS000042-00-BD01 10/15/2012 10/15/2012 NYS000042 Submitted: December 12, 2011
""tP-f'REGU(.q"
!~~'
~
0
~
~
i Y'1J.:
0'
?
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
We did not lose Caputo, Charles Monday, August 11, 2008 3 :23 PM Jackson, Charles <cjacks4@entergy.com>; Curry, John J
<j curry2@entergy.com>
RE: Risks From: Jackson, Charles Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 3:11 PM To: Caputo, Charles; Curry, John J Su bject: RE: Risks I agree, except we lost. We can continue the fight or develop an AMP. Developing an AMP would be the path of least resistance, and risking approval on this item is just not worth it, even if morally right.
From: Caputo, Charles Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 2:25 PM To: Curry, John J; Jackson, Charles Su bject: RE: Risks I don't agree with NYS-8, Transformer. Specifically, we should not develop an AMP. This issue has been addressed by the industry (passive) and we need to provide all of the documentation that justifies not including them. We would be the only plant in the country to develop an AMP as far as I know.
From: Curry, John J Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 3:02 PM To: Caputo, Charles
Subject:
FW: Risks From: Jackson, Charles Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 2:46 PM To: Curry, John J Su bject: Risks IPEC00091098 IPEC00091098