ML043020492

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
E-mail R. Ennis, NRR, to A. Howe, NRR, Et Al, State of Vermont Comments on EPU and AST
ML043020492
Person / Time
Site: Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date: 06/09/2004
From: Richard Ennis
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Anderson C, Bores R, Scott Burnell, Clifford J, Dennig R, Dyer J, Florek D, Holden C, Howe A, Jasinski R, Kim T, Leeds E, Lobel R, Madden T, Kamal Manoly, Marsh T, David Pelton, Diane Screnci, Neil Sheehan, Sheron B, Skay D, Virgilio R, Scott Wall
NRC/NRR/DLPM
References
FOIA/PA-2004-0362
Download: ML043020492 (1)


Text

MIlcnael I scmiltz - hwa: state ot Vermont comments on tt-U ana Aag I l

tage i I From:

§J&3/Rick Ennis To:

AAllen Howe; Brian Sheron; Cliff Anderson; Cornelius Holden; David Pelton; Diane Screnci; Donald Florek; Donna Skay; Eric Leeds; James Clifford; Jim Dyer; Kamal Manoly; Neil Sheehan; Richard Lobel; Robert Bores; Robert Dennig; Robert Jasinski; Rosetta Virgilio; Scott Burnell; Scott Wall; Tad Marsh; Tae Kim; Thomas Madden Date:

6/9/04 12:08PM

Subject:

Fwd: State of Vermont comments on EPU and AST Attached are 2 letters from the State of Vermont that Bill Sherman just emailed to me. They provide State comments on the Vermont Yankee AST amendment request and the EPU amendment request. Note, these are the second set of comments from the State on each amendment request. We previously responded to the first AST letter on 12/16/03 and the response to the first EPU letter (NPSH issue) is with Jim Dyer for review (scheduled to be issued today).

The letter concerning the AST amendment request Is one Bill previously told me he was sending in response to my routine request on whether the State had comments on the amendment. Based on the comments, we will not be able to issue the amendment by 6/30/04 as per the current schedule. I will pass this info on to the licensee. My plan is to coordinate with Tech Staff such that we can address the comments in the SE in parallel with sending a response back to the State. The issues concern SLC and the single failure criteria, quality standards for the ALT pathway, and reducing margin by increasing the allowed MSIV leakage.

The second letter was a suprise to me. It requests the NRC to perform independent calculations as part of the power uprate review in the areas concerning steam dryers, NPSH, and flow-induced vibration.

I will take both of these letters to the 5th floor so they can be Yellow Ticketed.

Thanks, Rick 415-1420 M')