ML20086D903: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:m | {{#Wiki_filter:m 33% k0 b. | ||
33% k0 | O | ||
~~n,3,_ | |||
CODSumBIS Power r3 r ~S IS 828 NFWERING llLLE: | |||
CODSumBIS Power r3 r ~S IS 828 NFWERING | RIKnNEAN5 PROGRESS | ||
RIKnNEAN5 PROGRESS | ,%;g G,.. | ||
Palisades Nuclear Plant. 27780 Blue Stai Memonal Highway, Covert. MI 49043 WR.3132.6 | Palisades Nuclear Plant. 27780 Blue Stai Memonal Highway, Covert. MI 49043 WR.3132.6 b/l+/es O | ||
b/l+/es O | June 29, 1995 Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 PROPOSED GENERIC LETTER: 10 CFR 50.54(P) PROCESS FOR CHANGES TO SECURITY PLANS WITHOUT PRIOR NRC APPROVAL, Consumers Power Company has reviewed the subject material published in the June 14, 1995 Federal Register and believes that it is an important first step toward allowing licensees the necessary flexibility to make changes within the security organization that will improve security effectiveness. This proposed generic letter also avoids unnecessary expense for requirements that provide no benefit. | ||
June 29, 1995 Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 PROPOSED GENERIC LETTER: 10 CFR 50.54(P) PROCESS FOR CHANGES TO SECURITY PLANS WITHOUT PRIOR NRC APPROVAL, Consumers Power Company has reviewed the subject material published in the June 14, 1995 Federal Register and believes that it is an important first step toward allowing licensees the necessary flexibility to make changes within the | The clarification of the language in s 50.54(p) and the examples offered will l | ||
security organization that will improve security effectiveness. This proposed generic letter also avoids unnecessary expense for requirements that provide | eliminate any doubt of changes which would be acceptable or unacceptable to the Commission. However, we do believe that some unacceptable changes could be acceptable if evaluated more closely. These reservation should not delay the issuance of the proposed generic letter and can be addressed at a future date. | ||
no benefit. | \\ | ||
The clarification of the language in s 50.54(p) and the examples offered will | ( | ||
the Commission. However, we do believe that some unacceptable changes could be acceptable if evaluated more closely. These reservation should not delay the issuance of the proposed generic letter and can be addressed at a future date. | f j | ||
\\d Oda. | |||
( | Robert A. Vincent Licensing Administrator cc SCCote MEVanAlst MAH95*034 9507110040 950629 PDR ADOCK 05000255 P | ||
PDR A CMS ENERGYCOMPANY | |||
Robert A. Vincent Licensing Administrator cc SCCote MEVanAlst MAH95*034 9507110040 950629 | ,}} | ||
PDR | |||
Latest revision as of 02:24, 14 December 2024
| ML20086D903 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 06/29/1995 |
| From: | Vincent R CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | NRC |
| References | |
| FRN-60FR31326 60FR31326-00001, 60FR31326-1, NUDOCS 9507110040 | |
| Download: ML20086D903 (1) | |
Text
m 33% k0 b.
O
~~n,3,_
CODSumBIS Power r3 r ~S IS 828 NFWERING llLLE:
RIKnNEAN5 PROGRESS
,%;g G,..
Palisades Nuclear Plant. 27780 Blue Stai Memonal Highway, Covert. MI 49043 WR.3132.6 b/l+/es O
June 29, 1995 Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 PROPOSED GENERIC LETTER: 10 CFR 50.54(P) PROCESS FOR CHANGES TO SECURITY PLANS WITHOUT PRIOR NRC APPROVAL, Consumers Power Company has reviewed the subject material published in the June 14, 1995 Federal Register and believes that it is an important first step toward allowing licensees the necessary flexibility to make changes within the security organization that will improve security effectiveness. This proposed generic letter also avoids unnecessary expense for requirements that provide no benefit.
The clarification of the language in s 50.54(p) and the examples offered will l
eliminate any doubt of changes which would be acceptable or unacceptable to the Commission. However, we do believe that some unacceptable changes could be acceptable if evaluated more closely. These reservation should not delay the issuance of the proposed generic letter and can be addressed at a future date.
\\
(
f j
\\d Oda.
Robert A. Vincent Licensing Administrator cc SCCote MEVanAlst MAH95*034 9507110040 950629 PDR ADOCK 05000255 P
,