ML17103A493: 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)
 
(7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
| issue date = 04/12/2017
| issue date = 04/12/2017
| title = Email - Opportunity to Comment on No Significant Hazards Consideration for Seabrook Station
| title = Email - Opportunity to Comment on No Significant Hazards Consideration for Seabrook Station
| author name = Danna J G
| author name = Danna J
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR/DORL/LPLI
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR/DORL/LPLI
| addressee name = Poole J C
| addressee name = Poole J
| addressee affiliation = NRC/NRR/DORL/LPLI
| addressee affiliation = NRC/NRR/DORL/LPLI
| docket = 05000443
| docket = 05000443
| license number = NPF-086
| license number = NPF-086
| contact person = Poole J C, NRR/DORL/LPLI, 415-2048
| contact person = Poole J, NRR/DORL/LPLI, 415-2048
| case reference number = CAC MF9549
| case reference number = CAC MF9549
| document type = E-Mail
| document type = E-Mail
| page count = 1
| page count = 1
| project = CAC:MF9549
| project = CAC:MF9549
| stage =  
| stage = Other
}}
}}


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:From:Danna, JamesTo:Poole, JustinSubject:FW: Opportunity to Comment on No Significant Hazards Consideration for Seabrook StationDate:Wednesday, April 12, 2017 12:10:05 PM From: Michael Ossing [mailto:michael.ossing@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 7:44 AMTo: Danna, James <James.Danna@nrc.gov>Cc: michael.ossing@comcast.netSubject: [External_Sender] Opportunity to Comment on No Significant Hazards Consideration for Seabrook Station Reference (a) - NRC letter dated April 6, 2017 "Seabrook Station Unit No. 1 - Public Notice ofApplication for Amendment to Facility Operation License (CAC No. MF9549)
{{#Wiki_filter:From:           Danna, James To:             Poole, Justin
Dear Mr. Danna:
 
In Reference (a), the NRC provided the public the opportunity to comment on the proposeddetermination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Crediting the functionality of the service water system during the period when the cooling tower in unavailable while in Modes 5 and 6 in the current refueling outage is appropriate. The preventivemaintenance on the cooling tower is an important activity to maintain the long term health of thecooling tower. Performing this activity during a refueling outage is appropriate as the risk to the public health and safety is extremely low and the administrative controls to return the cooling towerto operation in the unlikely event of the loss of the ocean supplied service water system provide thenecessary defense in depth.
==Subject:==
I have reviewed the response to the three questions provided by the licensee in Reference (a) andconcur that the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
FW: Opportunity to Comment on No Significant Hazards Consideration for Seabrook Station Date:           Wednesday, April 12, 2017 12:10:05 PM From: Michael Ossing [mailto:michael.ossing@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 7:44 AM To: Danna, James <James.Danna@nrc.gov>
Cc: michael.ossing@comcast.net
 
==Subject:==
[External_Sender] Opportunity to Comment on No Significant Hazards Consideration for Seabrook Station Reference (a) - NRC letter dated April 6, 2017 Seabrook Station Unit No. 1 - Public Notice of Application for Amendment to Facility Operation License (CAC No. MF9549)
 
==Dear Mr. Danna:==
 
In Reference (a), the NRC provided the public the opportunity to comment on the proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Crediting the functionality of the service water system during the period when the cooling tower in unavailable while in Modes 5 and 6 in the current refueling outage is appropriate. The preventive maintenance on the cooling tower is an important activity to maintain the long term health of the cooling tower. Performing this activity during a refueling outage is appropriate as the risk to the public health and safety is extremely low and the administrative controls to return the cooling tower to operation in the unlikely event of the loss of the ocean supplied service water system provide the necessary defense in depth.
I have reviewed the response to the three questions provided by the licensee in Reference (a) and concur that the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
I encourage the NRC to issue the exigent amendment to the Operating License.
I encourage the NRC to issue the exigent amendment to the Operating License.
Michael Ossing  
Michael Ossing}}
}}

Latest revision as of 04:38, 30 October 2019

Email - Opportunity to Comment on No Significant Hazards Consideration for Seabrook Station
ML17103A493
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 04/12/2017
From: James Danna
Plant Licensing Branch 1
To: Justin Poole
Plant Licensing Branch 1
Poole J, NRR/DORL/LPLI, 415-2048
References
CAC MF9549
Download: ML17103A493 (1)


Text

From: Danna, James To: Poole, Justin

Subject:

FW: Opportunity to Comment on No Significant Hazards Consideration for Seabrook Station Date: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 12:10:05 PM From: Michael Ossing [1]

Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 7:44 AM To: Danna, James <James.Danna@nrc.gov>

Cc: michael.ossing@comcast.net

Subject:

[External_Sender] Opportunity to Comment on No Significant Hazards Consideration for Seabrook Station Reference (a) - NRC letter dated April 6, 2017 Seabrook Station Unit No. 1 - Public Notice of Application for Amendment to Facility Operation License (CAC No. MF9549)

Dear Mr. Danna:

In Reference (a), the NRC provided the public the opportunity to comment on the proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

Crediting the functionality of the service water system during the period when the cooling tower in unavailable while in Modes 5 and 6 in the current refueling outage is appropriate. The preventive maintenance on the cooling tower is an important activity to maintain the long term health of the cooling tower. Performing this activity during a refueling outage is appropriate as the risk to the public health and safety is extremely low and the administrative controls to return the cooling tower to operation in the unlikely event of the loss of the ocean supplied service water system provide the necessary defense in depth.

I have reviewed the response to the three questions provided by the licensee in Reference (a) and concur that the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

I encourage the NRC to issue the exigent amendment to the Operating License.

Michael Ossing