From: Rihm, Roger
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 8:22 AM
To: Glitter, Joseph
Subject: RE: Clarifying Questions on the Table
Joe, hopefully you saw the clarifying email from Michael Marshall. Sorry I couldn’t get you 2 on the same email trail, but I couldn’t get your address to come up on my BBerry!
In terms of how the Chairman is planning to use this info, I think that’s sort of TBD until he sees what you are able to produce, how it looks, and what it means to him.
For example, we had asked Annie for a graphic that, upon discussion with the Chairman, he decided hedidn’t want produced because it was going to be too complicated to understand.
Please just do the best you can.
It would probably be preferable to send a partial product of whatever you have produced by about 9:45, so I can vet with Michael M and the Chairman while you continue to work. It is possible that decisions on proceeding might be made upon review of a partial product.
From: Guitter, Joseph
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 9:47 PM
To: Rihm, Roger
Cc: Howe, Allen; Nelson, Robert; Hiland, Patrick; Kammerer, Annie; Stutzke, Martin
Subject: Clarifying Questions on the Table
I cc’d you on an earlier e-mail. I wasn’t sure what you meant by reference level earthquake. Did you mean review level earthquake? Also, I wondered how the Chairman was planning to use this information.
The design basis is usually expressed in terms of ground acceleration (horizontal) with a more complete description in terms of a curve showing acceleration versus frequency.
However, you wouldn’t be able to infer what level earthquake (for example, on the Richter Scale) the plant would handle without the soil characteristics, etc.
Sorry if I’m being pedantic–I just want to make sure we give you what you’re looking for.
Also, I could anticipate that the Chairman might get a question about whether the NRC licensed coastal plants are designed for a design basis eathquake in combination with a maximum probable tsunami.
Let me know if you need that information.
[toggle_simple title=”Related articles” width=”600″]
- March 14th, 2011 – Things are getting really bad at Unit 2 (enformable.com)
- March 14th, 2011 – Japanese Earthquake Questions (enformable.com)
- March 15th 2011 – Table of BWR’s Mark I (enformable.com)
- March 14th, 2011 – GI-199 Questions – Due to uncertainties in the data NRC sending letter to US Plants (enformable.com)
- March 14th, 2011 – What a licensee needs to determine to ensure not exceeding licensed limits (enformable.com)
- March 25th, 2011 – Can we predict a tsunami wave height? – Are the models valid? (enformable.com)
- March 15th, 2011 – Plant Seismic information to Support NRC Hearing on Wednesday (enformable.com)
- March 16th, 2011 – Concrete Damage Inspection Experts (enformable.com)
- March 14th, 2011 – Is our [U.S.] battery backup power less effective than the Japanese? (enformable.com)
- March 23rd, 2011 – Response to what are we not getting done – Anthony Mendiola (enformable.com)
- March 14th, 2011 – Minimize Disruption of Activities – Single points of contact for information requests (enformable.com)
- March 11th, 2011 – Information more significant than official reports out (enformable.com)
- March 13th, 2011 – Certified designs of new reactors in the US are based on PGA of 0.3g (enformable.com)
- March 14th, 2011 – Earthquakes in the last 7 days almost all near Japan – Pretty Interesting (enformable.com)
- March 11th, 2011 – Premonitions of North Anna EQ – Why does the NRC have confidence that an eq greater than DB cannot occur in the US (enformable.com)
- March 14th, 2011 – People might start asking about designs & start to obstruct renewal processes (enformable.com)
- March 23rd, 2011 – Response to what are we not getting done – Patrick Hiland (enformable.com)