ML16350A083: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
Consistent with 10 CFR 50.90, an amendment to the license must fully describe the changes requested, and following as far as applicable, the form prescribed for original applications. 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 10 CFR 50.90, an amendment to the license must fully describe the changes requested, and following as far as applicable, the form prescribed for original applications. 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 amendments 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. You will be advised of any further information needed to support the NRC staffs detailed technical review 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 amendments 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. You will be advised of any further information needed to support the NRC staffs detailed technical review by separate correspondence. | ||
Based on the information provided in your submittal, the NRC staff has estimated that this licensing request will take approximately 250 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 (greater than a month) or significant changes in the forecasted hours (greater than 25%), 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::250 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 (greater than a month) or significant changes in the forecasted hours (greater than 25%), 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 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. Additional delay may occur if the submittal is provided to the NRC in advance or in parallel with industry program initiatives or pilot applications. | These estimates are based on the 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. Additional delay may occur if the submittal is provided to the NRC in advance or in parallel with industry program initiatives or pilot applications. | ||
1 | 1 | ||
Latest revision as of 02:30, 9 March 2020
| ML16350A083 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 12/15/2016 |
| From: | Carleen Parker Plant Licensing Branch 1 |
| To: | Duke P, Bernard Thomas Public Service Enterprise Group |
| References | |
| MF8859, MF8860 | |
| Download: ML16350A083 (3) | |
Text
NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: Parker, Carleen Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 8:33 AM To: Duke, Paul R. (Paul.Duke@pseg.com); Thomas, Brian J. (Brian.Thomas@pseg.com)
Cc: Vu, Hang; Beaton, Robert; Chernoff, Margaret; Koenick, Stephen
Subject:
Acceptance Review - Salem LAR to Amend the Accident Monitoring Instrumentation Technical Specifications (MF8859 & MF8860))
Paul and Brian, By letter dated November 17, 2016 (Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS)
Accession No. ML16323A279), PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG) submitted a license amendment request to revise the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Accident Monitoring Instrumentation Technical Specifications (TSs) and Surveillance Requirements by modifying the list of instruments to be operable based on implementation of Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2, Instrumentation for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess Plant and Environs Conditions During and Following an Accident. In addition, the request would revise the allowed outage times and required actions for inoperable channels to be consistent with NUREG-1431, Revision 4, Standard Technical Specifications - Westinghouse Plants. Special Reports TS 6.9.4 would also be revised to reflect these changes.
The purpose of this email is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs 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 10 CFR 50.90, an amendment to the license must fully describe the changes requested, and following as far as applicable, the form prescribed for original applications. 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 amendments 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. You will be advised of any further information needed to support the NRC staffs detailed technical review by separate correspondence.
Based on the information provided in your submittal, the NRC staff has estimated that this licensing request will take approximately 250 hours10.417 days <br />1.488 weeks <br />0.342 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 (greater than a month) or significant changes in the forecasted hours (greater than 25%), 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 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. Additional delay may occur if the submittal is provided to the NRC in advance or in parallel with industry program initiatives or pilot applications.
1
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Carleen Parker Project Manager -
Hope Creek and Salem Plant Licensing Branch I-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (301)415-1603 carleen.parker@nrc.gov 2
Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 3216 Mail Envelope Properties (Carleen.Parker@nrc.gov20161215083200)
Subject:
Acceptance Review - Salem LAR to Amend the Accident Monitoring Instrumentation Technical Specifications (MF8859 & MF8860))
Sent Date: 12/15/2016 8:32:54 AM Received Date: 12/15/2016 8:32:00 AM From: Parker, Carleen Created By: Carleen.Parker@nrc.gov Recipients:
"Vu, Hang" <Hang.Vu@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "Beaton, Robert" <Robert.Beaton@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "Chernoff, Margaret" <Margaret.Chernoff@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "Koenick, Stephen" <Stephen.Koenick@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "Duke, Paul R. (Paul.Duke@pseg.com)" <Paul.Duke@pseg.com>
Tracking Status: None "Thomas, Brian J. (Brian.Thomas@pseg.com)" <Brian.Thomas@pseg.com>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 4171 12/15/2016 8:32:00 AM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received: