ML17240A310: 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 15: Line 15:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:1NRR-PMDAPEm ResourceFrom:Gibson, LaurenSent:Tuesday, August 15, 2017 3:22 PMTo:David.Distel@exeloncorp.com
{{#Wiki_filter:1NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From:Gibson, Lauren Sent:Tuesday, August 15, 2017 3:22 PM To:David.Distel@exeloncorp.com


==Subject:==
==Subject:==
Nine Mile Point MSA and FE RAIDavid, Please see the RAI below. I understand that you will submit the response as an e-mail and I will add it to ADAMS. Give me a call if you have any questions.
Nine Mile Point MSA and FE RAIDavid, Please see the RAI below. I understand that you will submit the response as an e-mail and I will add it to ADAMS. Give me a call if you have any questions.
Thank you, Lauren Lauren K. Gibson Project Manager Hazard Managemenr Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (301) 415-1056   


Request for Additional Information Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Mitigating Strategies Assessment and Focused Evaluation NTTF Recommendation 2.1-Flooding   As discussed in the audit call on August 15, 32017, the NRC notes that there are differences in the way that the warning time is addressed between the Mitigating Strategies Assessment (ML16349A029; dated December 14, 2016) and the Focused Evaluation (ML17069A005, dated March 10, 2017) for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station. In particular, the FE contains commitments to further evaluate the consequential rainfall estimate and meteorological assessments in order to determine if the monitoring threshold should be adjusted or if the flood protection strategies should be modified. Please explain the evolution of the approach and how it impacts the Mitigating Strategies Assessment. Given that the FE mentions the possibility of warning times that may be less than the 6.5 hours previously determined for installing the flood barriers, please provide a justification for the plant being protected during such time as the analyses and related commitments are being completed.
Thank you, Lauren Lauren K. Gibson Project Manager Hazard Managemenr Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (301) 415-1056
Hearing Identifier:  NRR_PMDA Email Number:  3696  Mail Envelope Properties  (d9b956fa31fb4b10a537b19b317e92f2)  
 
Request for Additional Information Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Mitigating Strategies Assessment and Focused Evaluation NTTF Recommendation 2.1-Flooding As discussed in the audit call on August 15, 32017, the NRC notes that there are differences in the way that the warning time is addressed between the Mitigating Strategies Assessment (ML16349A029; dated December 14, 2016) and the Focused Evaluation (ML17069A 005, dated March 10, 2017) for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station. In particular, the FE contains commitments to further evaluate the consequential rainfall estimate and meteorological assessments in order to determine if the monitoring threshold should be adjusted or if the flood protection strategies should be modified. Please explain the evolution of the approach and how it impacts the Mitigating Strategies Assessment. Given that the FE mentions the possibility of warning times that may be less than the 6.5 hours previously determined for installing the flood barriers, please provide a justification for the plant being protected during such time as the analyses and related commitments are being  
 
completed.
 
Hearing Identifier:  NRR_PMDA Email Number:  3696  Mail Envelope Properties  (d9b956fa31fb4b10a537b19b317e92f2)


==Subject:==
==Subject:==
Nine Mile Point MSA and FE RAI  Sent Date:  8/15/2017 3:21:41 PM  Received Date:  8/15/2017 3:21:41 PM From:    Gibson, Lauren Created By:  Lauren.Gibson@nrc.gov Recipients:    "David.Distel@exeloncorp.com" <David.Distel@exeloncorp.com>  Tracking Status: None Post Office:  HQPWMSMRS04.nrc.gov   Files    Size      Date & Time MESSAGE    1519      8/15/2017 3:21:41 PM Options  Priority:    Standard  Return Notification:    No  Reply Requested:    No  Sensitivity:    Normal  Expiration Date:      Recipients Received:}}
Nine Mile Point MSA and FE RAI  Sent Date:  8/15/2017 3:21:41 PM  Received Date:  8/15/2017 3:21:41 PM From:    Gibson, Lauren Created By:  Lauren.Gibson@nrc.gov Recipients:    "David.Distel@exeloncorp.com" <David.Distel@exeloncorp.com>  Tracking Status: None  
 
Post Office:  HQPWMSMRS04.nrc.gov Files    Size      Date & Time MESSAGE    1519      8/15/2017 3:21:41 PM
 
Options  Priority:    Standard  Return Notification:    No  Reply Requested:    No  Sensitivity:    Normal  Expiration Date:      Recipients Received:}}

Revision as of 15:14, 29 June 2018

2017/08/15 NRR E-mail Capture - Nine Mile Point MSA and FE RAI
ML17240A310
Person / Time
Site: Nine Mile Point  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 08/15/2017
From: Lauren Gibson
Japan Lessons-Learned Division
To: Distel D J
Exelon Corp
References
Download: ML17240A310 (2)
v • d • e


Text

1NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From:Gibson, Lauren Sent:Tuesday, August 15, 2017 3:22 PM To:David.Distel@exeloncorp.com

Subject:

Nine Mile Point MSA and FE RAIDavid, Please see the RAI below. I understand that you will submit the response as an e-mail and I will add it to ADAMS. Give me a call if you have any questions.

Thank you, Lauren Lauren K. Gibson Project Manager Hazard Managemenr Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (301) 415-1056

Request for Additional Information Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Mitigating Strategies Assessment and Focused Evaluation NTTF Recommendation 2.1-Flooding As discussed in the audit call on August 15, 32017, the NRC notes that there are differences in the way that the warning time is addressed between the Mitigating Strategies Assessment (ML16349A029; dated December 14, 2016) and the Focused Evaluation (ML17069A 005, dated March 10, 2017) for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station. In particular, the FE contains commitments to further evaluate the consequential rainfall estimate and meteorological assessments in order to determine if the monitoring threshold should be adjusted or if the flood protection strategies should be modified. Please explain the evolution of the approach and how it impacts the Mitigating Strategies Assessment. Given that the FE mentions the possibility of warning times that may be less than the 6.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> previously determined for installing the flood barriers, please provide a justification for the plant being protected during such time as the analyses and related commitments are being

completed.

Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 3696 Mail Envelope Properties (d9b956fa31fb4b10a537b19b317e92f2)

Subject:

Nine Mile Point MSA and FE RAI Sent Date: 8/15/2017 3:21:41 PM Received Date: 8/15/2017 3:21:41 PM From: Gibson, Lauren Created By: Lauren.Gibson@nrc.gov Recipients: "David.Distel@exeloncorp.com" <David.Distel@exeloncorp.com> Tracking Status: None

Post Office: HQPWMSMRS04.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 1519 8/15/2017 3:21:41 PM

Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: Recipients Received:

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML17240A310&oldid=746559"