ML17009A351: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs acceptance review of this LAR. 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 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs acceptance review of this LAR. 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 staffs 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. | 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 staffs 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 100 hours to complete. The NRC staff expects to complete this review in approximately 12 months, which is December, 2017. If there are emergent complexities or challenges in our review that would cause changes to the initial forecasted completion date or significant changes in the forecasted hours, the reasons for the changes, along with the new estimates, will be communicated during the routine interactions with the assigned project manager. | Based on the information provided in your submittal, the NRC staff has estimated that this licensing request will take approximately [[estimated NRC review hours::100 hours]] to complete. The NRC staff expects to complete this review in approximately 12 months, which is December, 2017. If there are emergent complexities or challenges in our review that would cause changes to the initial forecasted completion date or significant changes in the forecasted hours, the reasons for the changes, along with the new estimates, will be communicated during the routine interactions with the assigned project manager. | ||
These estimates are based on the NRC staffs 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. | These estimates are based on the NRC staffs 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 contact me. | If you have any questions, please contact me. |
Latest revision as of 02:11, 9 March 2020
ML17009A351 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Catawba ![]() |
Issue date: | 01/09/2017 |
From: | Michael Mahoney Plant Licensing Branch II |
To: | Fletcher C Duke Energy Corp |
References | |
MF8981, MF8982 | |
Download: ML17009A351 (3) | |
Text
NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: Mahoney, Michael Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 9:57 AM To: Fletcher II, Cecil Alexander Cc: 'Wilson, Carrie'
Subject:
Catawba, Unit 1 and 2 - Acceptance of Licensing Action Re: Amend for TSTF-315-A, Rev. 0, "Reduce Plant Trips Due to Spurious Signals to the NIS During Physics Testing" (MF8981 & MF8982)
- Cecil, By letter dated December 15, 2016, Duke Energy submitted a license amendment request (LAR) for Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. The LAR adopts TSTF-315-A, Rev. 0, Reduce Plant Trips Due to Spurious Signals to the NIS During Physics Testing (CACs MF8981 & MF8982).
The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs acceptance review of this LAR. 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 staffs 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 100 hours4.167 days <br />0.595 weeks <br />0.137 months <br /> to complete. The NRC staff expects to complete this review in approximately 12 months, which is December, 2017. If there are emergent complexities or challenges in our review that would cause changes to the initial forecasted completion date or significant changes in the forecasted hours, the reasons for the changes, along with the new estimates, will be communicated during the routine interactions with the assigned project manager.
These estimates are based on the NRC staffs 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 contact me.
Thanks Mike Michael Mahoney McGuire and Catawba Project Manager, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Desk: (301)-415-3867 1
Email: Michael.Mahoney@NRC.GOV 2
Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 3249 Mail Envelope Properties (f59db49f41994199b9e25e70519bbe21)
Subject:
Catawba, Unit 1 and 2 - Acceptance of Licensing Action Re: Amend for TSTF-315-A, Rev. 0, "Reduce Plant Trips Due to Spurious Signals to the NIS During Physics Testing" (MF8981 & MF8982)
Sent Date: 1/9/2017 9:56:34 AM Received Date: 1/9/2017 9:56:37 AM From: Mahoney, Michael Created By: Michael.Mahoney@nrc.gov Recipients:
"'Wilson, Carrie'" <Carrie.Wilson@duke-energy.com>
Tracking Status: None "Fletcher II, Cecil Alexander" <Cecil.Fletcher@duke-energy.com>
Tracking Status: None Post Office: R4PWMSMRS03.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 2775 1/9/2017 9:56:37 AM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received: