ML071690181: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:}} | {{#Wiki_filter:July 10, 2007MEMORANDUM TO:Pao-Tsin Kuo, DirectorDivision of License RenewalFROM:Bo M. Pham, Senior Project Manager /RA/Environmental Review Branch B Division of License Renewal | ||
==SUBJECT:== | |||
CONFERENCE CALL | |||
==SUMMARY== | |||
REGARDING STATUS OFACCEPTANCE REVIEW FOR THE INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATIONOn June 6, 2007, The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) held a telephoneconference with representatives from Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) to discuss a discrepancy regarding the information provided in the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 license renewal application (LRA). Specifically, the application indicated that a diesel generator provides emergency power for station blackout (SBO) and Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 50, Appendix R events for Unit 2. However, the currentlicensing basis (CLB) for Unit 2 involves reliance on gas turbines for this function. During the call, Entergy responded that the company has planned a modification to replace thegas turbines with the diesel generator for SBO and Appendix R prior to the staff's completion of the LRA review. The NRC staff stated that it understood Entergy's intention. However, it could not complete the acceptance review of the LRA with this discrepancy. The NRC staff also asked Entergy the time frame in which CLB information on the gas turbines could be submitted. | |||
Entergy responded that it would look into the matter, but also countered that it would rather the staff review information on the diesel generator, since the gas turbines would become obsolete before the staff completes its review of the LRA. During the call, Entergy also proposed to make a commitment to implement the diesel generator modification prior to completion of the staff's LRA review. The NRC staff informed Entergy that it would evaluate that option.The NRC staff ended the call by informing Entergy that it could not complete the acceptancereview until the discrepancy is resolved. The staff also indicated that it would communicate the need to resolve this discrepancy in a formal letter to the applicant. | |||
==Enclosure:== | |||
List of Participants CONTACT: Bo Pham, NRR/REBB 301-415-8450 July 10, 2007MEMORANDUM TO:Pao-Tsin Kuo, DirectorDivision of License RenewalFROM:Bo M. Pham, Senior Project Manager /RA/Environmental Review Branch B Division of License Renewal | |||
==SUBJECT:== | |||
CONFERENCE CALL | |||
==SUMMARY== | |||
REGARDING STATUS OFACCEPTANCE REVIEW FOR THE INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATIONOn June 6, 2007, The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) held a telephoneconference with representatives from Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) to discuss a discrepancy regarding the information provided in the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 license renewal application (LRA). Specifically, the application indicated that a diesel generator provides emergency power for station blackout (SBO) and Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 50, Appendix R events for Unit 2. However, the currentlicensing basis (CLB) for Unit 2 involves reliance on gas turbines for this function. During the call, Entergy responded that the company has planned a modification to replace thegas turbines with the diesel generator for SBO and Appendix R prior to the staff's completion of the LRA review. The NRC staff stated that it understood Entergy's intention. However, it could not complete the acceptance review of the LRA with this discrepancy. The NRC staff also asked Entergy the time frame in which CLB information on the gas turbines could be submitted. | |||
Entergy responded that it would look into the matter, but also countered that it would rather the staff review information on the diesel generator, since the gas turbines would become obsolete before the staff completes its review of the LRA. During the call, Entergy also proposed to make a commitment to implement the diesel generator modification prior to completion of the staff's LRA review. The NRC staff informed Entergy that it would evaluate that option.The NRC staff ended the call by informing Entergy that it could not complete the acceptancereview until the discrepancy is resolved. The staff also indicated that it would communicate the need to resolve this discrepancy in a formal letter to the applicant. | |||
==Enclosure:== | |||
List of ParticipantsCONTACT: Bo Pham, NRR/REBB 301-415-8450ACCESSION NO: ML071690181OFFICEPM: REBBPM: RLRBLA: DLRBC: REBBBC: RLRBD: DLRNAMEBPhamKGreenIKingRFranovichRAuluckPTKuo DATE06/29/0707/2/07 06/26/0707/5/0707/2/0707/10/07 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY EnclosureTELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALLINDIAN POINT GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATIONLIST OF PARTICIPANTSJune 6, 2007PARTICIPANTSAFFILIATIONSRani FranovichU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)Rajender AuluckNRC Jill CaverlyNRC Bo PhamNRC Juan AyalaNRC Roger WatersEntergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) | |||
Steven VerrochiEntergy Richard BurroniEntergy Ted IvyEntergy John CurryEntergyCharles CaputoEntergyMike StroudEntergy Reza AhrabliEntergy Arthur BortzEntergy Douglas GaynorEntergy Garry YoungEntergy Bill RussellEntergy Memo to P.T. Kuo from B. Pham dated, July 10, 2007 | |||
==SUBJECT:== | |||
CONFERENCE CALL | |||
==SUMMARY== | |||
REGARDING STATUS OF ACCEPTANCE REVIEW FOR THE INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATIONDISTRIBUTION: | |||
PUBLICE-mailRidsEdoMailCenter RidsSecyMailCenter RidsOgcMailCenter RidsNrrWpcMail RidsRgn1MailCenter RidsNrrDlr RidsNrrDlrRlra RidsNrrDlrRlrb RidsNrrDlrRlrc RidsNrrDlrReba RidsNrrDlrRebb | |||
RidsNrrDci RidsNrrDra RidsNrrDe RidsNrrDeEemb RidsNrrDeEeeb | |||
RidsNrrDss | |||
------------- | |||
BPham RFranovich KGreen RAuluck MKowal JBoska ECobey, RI RConte, RI MCox, RI DJackson, RI BWittick, RI NSheehan, RI OPA DScrenci, RI OPA SBurnell, OPA DMcIntyre, OPA RShane, OCA UShoop, OEDO}} | |||
Revision as of 22:27, 10 November 2018
| ML071690181 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 07/10/2007 |
| From: | Pham B M NRC/NRR/ADRO/DLR/REBB |
| To: | Kuo P T NRC/NRR/ADRO/DLR |
| Pham B | |
| References | |
| Download: ML071690181 (4) | |
Text
July 10, 2007MEMORANDUM TO:Pao-Tsin Kuo, DirectorDivision of License RenewalFROM:Bo M. Pham, Senior Project Manager /RA/Environmental Review Branch B Division of License Renewal
SUBJECT:
CONFERENCE CALL
SUMMARY
REGARDING STATUS OFACCEPTANCE REVIEW FOR THE INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATIONOn June 6, 2007, The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) held a telephoneconference with representatives from Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) to discuss a discrepancy regarding the information provided in the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 license renewal application (LRA). Specifically, the application indicated that a diesel generator provides emergency power for station blackout (SBO) and Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 50, Appendix R events for Unit 2. However, the currentlicensing basis (CLB) for Unit 2 involves reliance on gas turbines for this function. During the call, Entergy responded that the company has planned a modification to replace thegas turbines with the diesel generator for SBO and Appendix R prior to the staff's completion of the LRA review. The NRC staff stated that it understood Entergy's intention. However, it could not complete the acceptance review of the LRA with this discrepancy. The NRC staff also asked Entergy the time frame in which CLB information on the gas turbines could be submitted.
Entergy responded that it would look into the matter, but also countered that it would rather the staff review information on the diesel generator, since the gas turbines would become obsolete before the staff completes its review of the LRA. During the call, Entergy also proposed to make a commitment to implement the diesel generator modification prior to completion of the staff's LRA review. The NRC staff informed Entergy that it would evaluate that option.The NRC staff ended the call by informing Entergy that it could not complete the acceptancereview until the discrepancy is resolved. The staff also indicated that it would communicate the need to resolve this discrepancy in a formal letter to the applicant.
Enclosure:
List of Participants CONTACT: Bo Pham, NRR/REBB 301-415-8450 July 10, 2007MEMORANDUM TO:Pao-Tsin Kuo, DirectorDivision of License RenewalFROM:Bo M. Pham, Senior Project Manager /RA/Environmental Review Branch B Division of License Renewal
SUBJECT:
CONFERENCE CALL
SUMMARY
REGARDING STATUS OFACCEPTANCE REVIEW FOR THE INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATIONOn June 6, 2007, The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) held a telephoneconference with representatives from Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) to discuss a discrepancy regarding the information provided in the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 license renewal application (LRA). Specifically, the application indicated that a diesel generator provides emergency power for station blackout (SBO) and Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 50, Appendix R events for Unit 2. However, the currentlicensing basis (CLB) for Unit 2 involves reliance on gas turbines for this function. During the call, Entergy responded that the company has planned a modification to replace thegas turbines with the diesel generator for SBO and Appendix R prior to the staff's completion of the LRA review. The NRC staff stated that it understood Entergy's intention. However, it could not complete the acceptance review of the LRA with this discrepancy. The NRC staff also asked Entergy the time frame in which CLB information on the gas turbines could be submitted.
Entergy responded that it would look into the matter, but also countered that it would rather the staff review information on the diesel generator, since the gas turbines would become obsolete before the staff completes its review of the LRA. During the call, Entergy also proposed to make a commitment to implement the diesel generator modification prior to completion of the staff's LRA review. The NRC staff informed Entergy that it would evaluate that option.The NRC staff ended the call by informing Entergy that it could not complete the acceptancereview until the discrepancy is resolved. The staff also indicated that it would communicate the need to resolve this discrepancy in a formal letter to the applicant.
Enclosure:
List of ParticipantsCONTACT: Bo Pham, NRR/REBB 301-415-8450ACCESSION NO: ML071690181OFFICEPM: REBBPM: RLRBLA: DLRBC: REBBBC: RLRBD: DLRNAMEBPhamKGreenIKingRFranovichRAuluckPTKuo DATE06/29/0707/2/07 06/26/0707/5/0707/2/0707/10/07 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY EnclosureTELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALLINDIAN POINT GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATIONLIST OF PARTICIPANTSJune 6, 2007PARTICIPANTSAFFILIATIONSRani FranovichU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)Rajender AuluckNRC Jill CaverlyNRC Bo PhamNRC Juan AyalaNRC Roger WatersEntergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy)
Steven VerrochiEntergy Richard BurroniEntergy Ted IvyEntergy John CurryEntergyCharles CaputoEntergyMike StroudEntergy Reza AhrabliEntergy Arthur BortzEntergy Douglas GaynorEntergy Garry YoungEntergy Bill RussellEntergy Memo to P.T. Kuo from B. Pham dated, July 10, 2007
SUBJECT:
CONFERENCE CALL
SUMMARY
REGARDING STATUS OF ACCEPTANCE REVIEW FOR THE INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATIONDISTRIBUTION:
PUBLICE-mailRidsEdoMailCenter RidsSecyMailCenter RidsOgcMailCenter RidsNrrWpcMail RidsRgn1MailCenter RidsNrrDlr RidsNrrDlrRlra RidsNrrDlrRlrb RidsNrrDlrRlrc RidsNrrDlrReba RidsNrrDlrRebb
RidsNrrDci RidsNrrDra RidsNrrDe RidsNrrDeEemb RidsNrrDeEeeb
RidsNrrDss
BPham RFranovich KGreen RAuluck MKowal JBoska ECobey, RI RConte, RI MCox, RI DJackson, RI BWittick, RI NSheehan, RI OPA DScrenci, RI OPA SBurnell, OPA DMcIntyre, OPA RShane, OCA UShoop, OEDO