ML110691143

From kanterella
Revision as of 02:14, 13 November 2019 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
E-mail from D. Frumkin, NRR to B. Metzger, NRR Last (I Hope) Thoughts on Oyster Creek RAIs
ML110691143
Person / Time
Site: Oyster Creek
Issue date: 12/20/2009
From: Daniel Frumkin
NRC/NRR/DRA
To: Brian Metzger
NRC/NRR/DRA/AFPB
References
FOIA/PA-2011-0069
Download: ML110691143 (1)


Text

Metzger, Brian From: Frumkin, Daniel 1NNC(L-Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 11:14 AM To: Metzger, Brian 1 )V(LXZ-

Subject:

Re: Last (I hope) thoughts on Oyster Creek RAIs Print out a copy and give it to Alex today. I'll get him the concurrence package monday.

Dan Send from NRC Blackberry 301-873-8068 From: Metzger, Brian ICKLg..

To: Frumkin, Daniel Sent: Fri Nov 20 11:11:58 2009

Subject:

RE: Last (I hope) thoughts on Oyster Creek RAIs ok, I made all those changes with the exception of RAI 11 because they actually do state that the are required to reenter fire areas and the tables support that. I checked it back in if you want to check what I did. let me know if theres any more comments.

b From: Frumkin, Daniel b{L-Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 10:46 AM To: Metzger, Brian

Subject:

Last (I hope) thoughts on Oyster Creek RAIs RAI 9.2 and RAI 12.1 really seem to ask the same thing. I would suggest adding some uncertainty language to RAI 9.2, and deleting all of RAI 12. Yeah, although the other questions under RAI 12, (12.2 and 12.3) are interesting, I'm not seeing how we would incorporate this information into the SE.

Remove RAI 10.1 - They did tell us which areas require SCBA.

There is no RAI number about - "procedurally directed to dorn SCBAs or if the time needed to don the SCBAs was included in the analysis." I suggest adding this as an RAI number - you can use 10.1.

Delete the first paragraph under RAI 11. They said there weren't any areas for reentry in the March 4 submittal, we should take them at their word.

Under RAI 17, 1 thought I suggested some words. We don't need them to quantify minor leakage. For example if they say 10 gpm or 5,000 gpm, this will have no use to us. What we want them to do is provide us assurance that the leakage will only be minor and not significant enough to impact the 180 minute time limit.

1