ML12200A195: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| number = ML12200A195 | | number = ML12200A195 | ||
| issue date = 11/07/2011 | | issue date = 11/07/2011 | ||
| title = | | title = Shield Building Issue NRC Technical Reviewer Focus Questions | ||
| author name = | | author name = | ||
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR | | author affiliation = NRC/NRR | ||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| page count = 1 | | page count = 1 | ||
}} | }} | ||
=Text= | |||
{{#Wiki_filter: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?}} |
Latest revision as of 01:48, 12 November 2019
ML12200A195 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Davis Besse ![]() |
Issue date: | 11/07/2011 |
From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
To: | |
References | |
FOIA/PA-2012-0121 | |
Download: ML12200A195 (1) | |
Text
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?