ML13277A352: 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 3: Line 3:
| issue date = 10/03/2013
| issue date = 10/03/2013
| title = Acceptance Review: Susquehanna, Units 1 and 2, Proposed Relief Requests for the Fourth Ten-Year Inservice Inspection Interval
| title = Acceptance Review: Susquehanna, Units 1 and 2, Proposed Relief Requests for the Fourth Ten-Year Inservice Inspection Interval
| author name = Hughey J D
| author name = Hughey J
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR/DORL/LPLI-2
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR/DORL/LPLI-2
| addressee name = Whited J A
| addressee name = Whited J
| addressee affiliation = NRC/NRR/DORL/LPLI-2
| addressee affiliation = NRC/NRR/DORL/LPLI-2
| docket = 05000387, 05000388
| docket = 05000387, 05000388
| license number =  
| license number =  
| contact person = Hughey J D
| contact person = Hughey J
| document type = E-Mail
| document type = E-Mail
| page count = 1
| page count = 1

Revision as of 22:25, 21 June 2019

Acceptance Review: Susquehanna, Units 1 and 2, Proposed Relief Requests for the Fourth Ten-Year Inservice Inspection Interval
ML13277A352
Person / Time
Site: Susquehanna  Talen Energy icon.png
Issue date: 10/03/2013
From: John Hughey
Plant Licensing Branch 1
To: Jeffrey Whited
Plant Licensing Branch 1
Hughey J
References
Download: ML13277A352 (1)


Text

From:Hughey, John To: dlfilchner@pplweb.com Cc:Whited, Jeffrey

Subject:

Acceptance Review: Susquehanna, Units 1 and 2, Proposed Relief Requests for the Fourth Ten-Year InserviceInspection Interval.

Date:Thursday, October 03, 2013 9:27:00 AM

Duane,

By letter dated August 30, 2013, PPL submitted a relief requests 4RR-02, 4RR-05, 4RR-06, 4RR-07 and 4RR-08 for Susquehanna, Units 1 and 2 (ADAMS Accession No.ML13247A167; TAC Nos. MF2705 - MF2714). The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's acceptance review of these proposed relief requests.

The acceptance review was performed to determine if there is sufficient technical information in scope and depth to allow the NRC staff to complete its detailed technical review. The acceptance review is also intended to identify whether the application has any readily apparent information insufficiencies in its characterization of the regulatory requirements or the licensing basis of the plant.

The NRC staff has reviewed your application and concluded that it does provide technical information in sufficient detail to enable the NRC staff to complete its detailed technical review and make an independent assessment regarding the acceptability of the proposed amendment in terms of regulatory requirements and the protection of public health and safety and the environment.

Given the lesser scope and depth of the acceptance review as compared to the detailed technical review, there may be instances in which issues that impact the NRC staff's ability to complete the detailed technical review are identified despite completion of an adequate acceptance review. If additional information is needed, you will be advised by separate correspondence.

If you have any questions, please contact me.

John HugheySusquehanna Acting Project ManagerSalem / Hope Creek Project ManagerNRR / Division of Operating Reactor Licensing

Phone: 301-415-3204e-mail: John.Hughey@nrc.gov