ML17034A183: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 18: Line 18:


==Subject:==
==Subject:==
Attachments: Joel, --------------Samuel Miranda <sm0973@gmail.com> Thursday, February 02, 2017 10:44 AM Wiebe, Joel [External_Sender] Re: RE: Re: November 15, 2016, Enforcement Petition Regarding Exelon's *Byron and Braidwood Stations Byron-Ch-15-ML14363A495-IOECCS.pdf; P-2206-mtg.docx _ Thank you for the opportunity to present my petition, yesterday. I could have go on much longer; but I didn't want to put everyone to sleep. I think the petition is robust, and full of references, for those who wish to read it. for your reference, and distribution, I have attached a copy of my presentation, including the two handouts. I think you will see that the presentation supplements the petition. I have also attached a copy of the Byron & Braidwood UFSAR chapter regarding the IOECCS. Page 15.5-2 lists the three that the analyses must meet, and page 15.5-8 (reference 5) points to the water relief test report that states the tests that Byron & Braidwood relies upon to "qualify" their PSVs were not done (Section 4.2.3, in the report). I think these will establish the Licensee's written commitment, and its failure to meet it. This information pertains to Sara Kirkwood's questions. My positi.on, in one sentence, is that qualifying the PSVs for water relief, will do nothing to show that the non-escalation requirement is satisfied. Regards, Sam Miranda}}
 
Attachments:
Joel, --------------Samuel Miranda <sm0973@gmail.com>  
: Thursday, February 02, 2017 10:44 AM Wiebe, Joel [External_Sender]
Re: RE: Re: November 15, 2016, Enforcement Petition Regarding Exelon's  
*Byron and Braidwood Stations Byron-Ch-15-ML14363A495-IOECCS.pdf; P-2206-mtg.docx
_ Thank you for the opportunity to present my petition, yesterday.
I could have go on much longer; but I didn't want to put everyone to sleep. I think the petition is robust, and full of references, for those who wish to read it. for your reference, and distribution, I have attached a copy of my presentation, including the two handouts.
I think you will see that the presentation supplements the petition.
I have also attached a copy of the Byron & Braidwood UFSAR chapter regarding the IOECCS. Page 15.5-2 lists the three that the analyses must meet, and page 15.5-8 (reference  
: 5) points to the water relief test report that states the tests that Byron & Braidwood relies upon to "qualify" their PSVs were not done (Section 4.2.3, in the report).
I think these will establish the Licensee's written commitment, and its failure to meet it. This information pertains to Sara Kirkwood's questions.
My positi.on, in one sentence, is that qualifying the PSVs for water relief, will do nothing to show that the non-escalation requirement is satisfied.  
: Regards, Sam Miranda}}

Revision as of 23:45, 29 June 2018

Samuel Miranda e-mail
ML17034A183
Person / Time
Site: Byron, Braidwood  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 02/02/2017
From: Miranda S
- No Known Affiliation
To: Joel Wiebe
Division of Operating Reactor Licensing
References
Download: ML17034A183 (1)
v • d • e


Text

., Wiebe, Joel From: Sent: To:

Subject:

Attachments:

Joel, --------------Samuel Miranda <sm0973@gmail.com>

Thursday, February 02, 2017 10:44 AM Wiebe, Joel [External_Sender]

Re: RE: Re: November 15, 2016, Enforcement Petition Regarding Exelon's

  • Byron and Braidwood Stations Byron-Ch-15-ML14363A495-IOECCS.pdf; P-2206-mtg.docx

_ Thank you for the opportunity to present my petition, yesterday.

I could have go on much longer; but I didn't want to put everyone to sleep. I think the petition is robust, and full of references, for those who wish to read it. for your reference, and distribution, I have attached a copy of my presentation, including the two handouts.

I think you will see that the presentation supplements the petition.

I have also attached a copy of the Byron & Braidwood UFSAR chapter regarding the IOECCS. Page 15.5-2 lists the three that the analyses must meet, and page 15.5-8 (reference

5) points to the water relief test report that states the tests that Byron & Braidwood relies upon to "qualify" their PSVs were not done (Section 4.2.3, in the report).

I think these will establish the Licensee's written commitment, and its failure to meet it. This information pertains to Sara Kirkwood's questions.

My positi.on, in one sentence, is that qualifying the PSVs for water relief, will do nothing to show that the non-escalation requirement is satisfied.

Regards, Sam Miranda
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML17034A183&oldid=758006"