ML17107A233: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
NRC Staffs LIC-109 Acceptance Review Results for Turkey Point 3 & 4 Relief Request No. PR-03 for the 5th 10-Year IST Interval (TAC Nos. MF9526 and MF9527) | NRC Staffs LIC-109 Acceptance Review Results for Turkey Point 3 & 4 Relief Request No. PR-03 for the 5th 10-Year IST Interval (TAC Nos. MF9526 and MF9527) | ||
Hi Mitch, By letter L-2017-047 dated March 23, 2017 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. | Hi Mitch, By letter L-2017-047 dated March 23, 2017 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML17089A646), Florida Power & Light Company (the licensee) submitted Relief Request No. PR-03 for the fifth 10-year interval inservice testing program for Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4. The staff performed an acceptance review of the submittal to determine if the scope and depth of technical information is sufficient for the staff to complete its detailed technical review. The acceptance review also intends to identify whether the request has any readily apparent information insufficiencies in its characterization of the regulatory requirements or the licensing basis of the plant. | ||
ML17089A646), Florida Power & Light Company (the licensee) submitted Relief Request No. PR-03 for the fifth 10-year interval inservice testing program for Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4. The staff performed an acceptance review of the submittal to determine if the scope and depth of technical information is sufficient for the staff to complete its detailed technical review. The acceptance review also intends to identify whether the request has any readily apparent information insufficiencies in its characterization of the regulatory requirements or the licensing basis of the plant. | |||
The staff concluded that the submittal provides technical information in sufficient detail to enable the staff to complete its detailed technical review and make an independent assessment regarding the acceptability of the proposed request 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 the staff identifies issues that affect its ability to complete the detailed technical review despite completion of an adequate acceptance review. If the staff needs additional information, it will notify you by separate correspondence. | The staff concluded that the submittal provides technical information in sufficient detail to enable the staff to complete its detailed technical review and make an independent assessment regarding the acceptability of the proposed request 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 the staff identifies issues that affect its ability to complete the detailed technical review despite completion of an adequate acceptance review. If the staff needs additional information, it will notify you by separate correspondence. | ||
The staff estimates that its review of the submittal will take approximately 60 hours to complete and expects to complete the review by December 31, 2017. If complexities or challenges emerge during the review and cause significant changes to the estimated hours or forecasted completion date, the project manager will discuss the changes and the new estimates during routine communications with licensee staff. | The staff estimates that its review of the submittal will take approximately 60 hours to complete and expects to complete the review by December 31, 2017. If complexities or challenges emerge during the review and cause significant changes to the estimated hours or forecasted completion date, the project manager will discuss the changes and the new estimates during routine communications with licensee staff. | ||
Revision as of 17:59, 4 February 2020
| ML17107A233 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/17/2017 |
| From: | Audrey Klett Plant Licensing Branch II |
| To: | Guth M Florida Power & Light Co |
| References | |
| MF9526, MF9527 | |
| Download: ML17107A233 (2) | |
Text
NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: Klett, Audrey Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 11:03 AM To: 'Mitch.Guth@fpl.com' Cc: 'Hanek, Olga' (Olga.Hanek@fpl.com); 'Mihalakea, Stavroula' (Stavroula.Mihalakea@fpl.com)
Subject:
NRC Staffs LIC-109 Acceptance Review Results for Turkey Point 3 & 4 Relief Request No. PR-03 for the 5th 10-Year IST Interval (TAC Nos. MF9526 and MF9527)
Hi Mitch, By letter L-2017-047 dated March 23, 2017 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML17089A646), Florida Power & Light Company (the licensee) submitted Relief Request No. PR-03 for the fifth 10-year interval inservice testing program for Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4. The staff performed an acceptance review of the submittal to determine if the scope and depth of technical information is sufficient for the staff to complete its detailed technical review. The acceptance review also intends to identify whether the request has any readily apparent information insufficiencies in its characterization of the regulatory requirements or the licensing basis of the plant.
The staff concluded that the submittal provides technical information in sufficient detail to enable the staff to complete its detailed technical review and make an independent assessment regarding the acceptability of the proposed request 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 the staff identifies issues that affect its ability to complete the detailed technical review despite completion of an adequate acceptance review. If the staff needs additional information, it will notify you by separate correspondence.
The staff estimates that its review of the submittal will take approximately 60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br /> to complete and expects to complete the review by December 31, 2017. If complexities or challenges emerge during the review and cause significant changes to the estimated hours or forecasted completion date, the project manager will discuss the changes and the new estimates during routine communications with licensee staff.
If you have any questions, please call me at (301) 415-0489.
Audrey Klett Project Manager NRR/DORL/LPLII-2 301-415-0489 1
Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 3441 Mail Envelope Properties (Audrey.Klett@nrc.gov20170417110300)
Subject:
NRC Staffs LIC-109 Acceptance Review Results for Turkey Point 3 & 4 Relief Request No. PR-03 for the 5th 10-Year IST Interval (TAC Nos. MF9526 and MF9527)
Sent Date: 4/17/2017 11:03:06 AM Received Date: 4/17/2017 11:03:00 AM From: Klett, Audrey Created By: Audrey.Klett@nrc.gov Recipients:
"'Hanek, Olga' (Olga.Hanek@fpl.com)" <Olga.Hanek@fpl.com>
Tracking Status: None
"'Mihalakea, Stavroula' (Stavroula.Mihalakea@fpl.com)" <Stavroula.Mihalakea@fpl.com>
Tracking Status: None
"'Mitch.Guth@fpl.com'" <Mitch.Guth@fpl.com>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 2000 4/17/2017 11:03:00 AM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received: