ML17003A252: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:1NRR-PMDAPEm | {{#Wiki_filter:1NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From:Rankin, Jennivine Sent:Wednesday, December 14, 2016 11:17 AM To:ERICKSON, JEFFREY S (JERICKS@entergy.com) | ||
; MIKSA, JAMES P (j miksa@entergy.com) | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
Palisades Nuclear Plant - Acceptance Review for Editorial and Administrative Changes for TS (MF8796)Mr. Miksa and Mr. Erickson, By letter dated November 9, 2016 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML16314A027), Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (the licensee), submitted a license amendment request for Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNP). The proposed amendment would revise the PNP technical specifications (TS) to correct an typographical error in TS Limiting Condition for Operation 3.0.9 and to correct and modify the description of components within TS 5.5.10, "Ventilation Filter Testing Program." | Palisades Nuclear Plant - Acceptance Review for Editorial and Administrative Changes for TS (MF8796)Mr. Miksa and Mr. Erickson, | ||
By letter dated November 9, 2016 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML16314A027), Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (the licensee), submitted a license amendment request for Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNP). The proposed amendment would revise the PNP technical specifications (TS) to correct an typographical error in TS Limiting Condition for Operation 3.0.9 and to correct and modify the description of components within TS 5.5.10, "Ventilation Filter Testing Program." | |||
The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the NRC staff's acceptance review of this amendment request. 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 purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the NRC staff's acceptance review of this amendment request. 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. | ||
Consistent with Section 50.90 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), an amendment to the license must fully describe the changes requested, and following as far as applicable, the form prescribed for original application. Section 50.34 of 10 CFR addresses the content of technical information required. This section stipulates that the submittal address the design and operating characteristics, unusual or novel design features, and principal safety considerations | Consistent with Section 50.90 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), an amendment to the license must fully describe the changes requested, and following as far as applicable, the form prescribed for original application. Section 50.34 of 10 CFR addresses the content of technical information required. This section stipulates that the submittal address the design and operating characteristics, unusual or novel design features, and principal safety considerations. | ||
If you have any questions, please | 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. | ||
Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA | Based on the information provided in your submittal, the NRC staff has estimated that this licensing request will take approximately 150 hours to complete. The NRC staff expects to complete this review in approximately 10 months, which is September 2017. If there are emergent complexities or challenges in our review that would cause changes to the initial forecasted completion date (greater than a month) or significant changes in the forecasted hours (greater than 25%), I will communicate the reasons for the changes, along with the new estimates during our routine interactions. These estimates are based on the staff's initial review of the application and they could change, due to several factors including requests for additional information, unanticipated addition of scope to the review, and review by NRC advisory committees or hearing-related activities. | ||
If you have any questions, please c ontact me at (301) 415-1530. | |||
Thanks, Jennie Jennie Rankin, Project Manager Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 2 | |||
Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 3241 Mail Envelope Properties (Jennivine.Rankin@nrc.gov20161214111700) | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
Palisades Nuclear Plant - Acceptance Review for Editorial and Administrative Changes for TS (MF8796) Sent Date: 12/14/2016 11:17:26 AM Received Date: 12/14/2016 11:17:00 AM | Palisades Nuclear Plant - Acceptance Review for Editorial and Administrative Changes for TS (MF8796) Sent Date: 12/14/2016 11:17:26 AM Received Date: 12/14/2016 11:17:00 AM From: Rankin, Jennivine Created By: Jennivine.Rankin@nrc.gov Recipients: "ERICKSON, JEFFREY S (JERICKS@entergy.com)" <JERICKS@entergy.com> Tracking Status: None "MIKSA, JAMES P (jmiksa@entergy.com)" <jmiksa@entergy.com> Tracking Status: None Post Office: Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 3386 12/14/2016 11:17:00 AM | ||
Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: Recipients Received:}} |
Revision as of 01:19, 30 June 2018
ML17003A252 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Palisades ![]() |
Issue date: | 12/14/2016 |
From: | Jennivine Rankin Plant Licensing Branch III |
To: | Erickson J S, Miksa J P Entergy Nuclear Operations |
References | |
MF8796 | |
Download: ML17003A252 (3) | |
Text
1NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From:Rankin, Jennivine Sent:Wednesday, December 14, 2016 11:17 AM To:ERICKSON, JEFFREY S (JERICKS@entergy.com)
- MIKSA, JAMES P (j miksa@entergy.com)
Subject:
Palisades Nuclear Plant - Acceptance Review for Editorial and Administrative Changes for TS (MF8796)Mr. Miksa and Mr. Erickson,
By letter dated November 9, 2016 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML16314A027), Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (the licensee), submitted a license amendment request for Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNP). The proposed amendment would revise the PNP technical specifications (TS) to correct an typographical error in TS Limiting Condition for Operation 3.0.9 and to correct and modify the description of components within TS 5.5.10, "Ventilation Filter Testing Program."
The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the NRC staff's acceptance review of this amendment request. 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.
Consistent with Section 50.90 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), an amendment to the license must fully describe the changes requested, and following as far as applicable, the form prescribed for original application. Section 50.34 of 10 CFR addresses the content of technical information required. This section stipulates that the submittal address the design and operating characteristics, unusual or novel design features, and principal safety considerations.
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.
Based on the information provided in your submittal, the NRC staff has estimated that this licensing request will take approximately 150 hours0.00174 days <br />0.0417 hours <br />2.480159e-4 weeks <br />5.7075e-5 months <br /> to complete. The NRC staff expects to complete this review in approximately 10 months, which is September 2017. If there are emergent complexities or challenges in our review that would cause changes to the initial forecasted completion date (greater than a month) or significant changes in the forecasted hours (greater than 25%), I will communicate the reasons for the changes, along with the new estimates during our routine interactions. These estimates are based on the staff's initial review of the application and they could change, due to several factors including requests for additional information, unanticipated addition of scope to the review, and review by NRC advisory committees or hearing-related activities.
If you have any questions, please c ontact me at (301) 415-1530.
Thanks, Jennie Jennie Rankin, Project Manager Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 2
Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 3241 Mail Envelope Properties (Jennivine.Rankin@nrc.gov20161214111700)
Subject:
Palisades Nuclear Plant - Acceptance Review for Editorial and Administrative Changes for TS (MF8796) Sent Date: 12/14/2016 11:17:26 AM Received Date: 12/14/2016 11:17:00 AM From: Rankin, Jennivine Created By: Jennivine.Rankin@nrc.gov Recipients: "ERICKSON, JEFFREY S (JERICKS@entergy.com)" <JERICKS@entergy.com> Tracking Status: None "MIKSA, JAMES P (jmiksa@entergy.com)" <jmiksa@entergy.com> Tracking Status: None Post Office: Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 3386 12/14/2016 11:17:00 AM
Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: Recipients Received: