ML17321A554: 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:From:Guzman, RichardTo:Mirzai, MahvashCc:RidsNRRLIC109 Resource; Walpole, Robert WSubject:Acceptance Review Determination: Indian Point Unit 3 - Relief Requests Associated with Extension of FourthInterval Reactor Vessel and Piping Weld Inspections and 10-year ISI Extension; (EPID: L-2017-LLR-0124, 0127, 0128)Date:Friday, November 17, 2017 12:19:23 PMMahvash, | ||
By two letters dated October 18, 2017 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML17297A455 (NL-17-130) and ML17297A461 (NL-17-131), Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. submitted thefollowing three relief requests for Indian Point Unit No. 3 (IP3): ~ IP3-ISl-RR-11 - Relief Request to extend the reactor vessel weld (Fourth) inserviceinspection interval (ISI) for IP3 from the Spring 2019 (RFO 20) to the Spring 2021 refueling outage (RFO 21).~ IP3-ISl-RR-12 - Relief Request related to ASME Code Case N-770-2 to extend thecold leg weld inspections from the Spring 2019 to the Spring 2021 RFO.~ IP3-ISl-RR-13 - Relief Request to extend the current (Fourth) 10-year ISI by 12months beyond the one-year extension already allowed by the ASME Section X The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's acceptance review of these relief 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 for all three action The acceptance review is also intended to identify whether the relief requests have any readily apparent information insufficiencies in the characterization of the regulatory requirements or the licensing basis of the plan The NRC staff has reviewed your requests for relief and concluded that they 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 relief requests in terms of protection of public health and safety and the environmen 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 staff's ability to complete the detailed technical review are identified despite completion of an adequate acceptance revie You will be advised of any further information needed to support the NRC staff's detailed technical review by separate correspondenc Based on the information provided in your submittal, the NRC staff has estimated that the review of these relief requests will take approximately 315 hours to complet The NRC staff expects to complete this review by October 201 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 manage These estimates are based on the NRC staff's initial review of the application and they could change, due to several factors including requests for additional information, and unanticipated addition of scope to the revie Additional delay may occur if the submittal is provided to the NRC in advance or in parallel with industry program initiatives or pilot application Please contact me if you have any question A copy of this email will be made publiclyavailable in ADAM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Rich GuzmanSr. PM, Division Operator Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office: O-9C7 l Phone: (301) 415-1030 Richard.Guzman@nrc.gov}} |
Revision as of 23:10, 15 March 2018
ML17321A554 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Indian Point |
Issue date: | 11/17/2017 |
From: | Guzman R V Plant Licensing Branch 1 |
To: | Mirzai M Entergy Nuclear Operations |
Guzman R V | |
References | |
EPID L-2017-LLR-0124, EPID L-2017-LLR-0127, EPID L-2017-LLR-0128 | |
Download: ML17321A554 (2) | |
Text
From:Guzman, RichardTo:Mirzai, MahvashCc:RidsNRRLIC109 Resource; Walpole, Robert WSubject:Acceptance Review Determination: Indian Point Unit 3 - Relief Requests Associated with Extension of FourthInterval Reactor Vessel and Piping Weld Inspections and 10-year ISI Extension; (EPID: L-2017-LLR-0124, 0127, 0128)Date:Friday, November 17, 2017 12:19:23 PMMahvash,
By two letters dated October 18, 2017 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML17297A455 (NL-17-130) and ML17297A461 (NL-17-131), Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. submitted thefollowing three relief requests for Indian Point Unit No. 3 (IP3): ~ IP3-ISl-RR-11 - Relief Request to extend the reactor vessel weld (Fourth) inserviceinspection interval (ISI) for IP3 from the Spring 2019 (RFO 20) to the Spring 2021 refueling outage (RFO 21).~ IP3-ISl-RR-12 - Relief Request related to ASME Code Case N-770-2 to extend thecold leg weld inspections from the Spring 2019 to the Spring 2021 RFO.~ IP3-ISl-RR-13 - Relief Request to extend the current (Fourth) 10-year ISI by 12months beyond the one-year extension already allowed by the ASME Section X The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's acceptance review of these relief 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 for all three action The acceptance review is also intended to identify whether the relief requests have any readily apparent information insufficiencies in the characterization of the regulatory requirements or the licensing basis of the plan The NRC staff has reviewed your requests for relief and concluded that they 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 relief requests in terms of protection of public health and safety and the environmen 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 staff's ability to complete the detailed technical review are identified despite completion of an adequate acceptance revie You will be advised of any further information needed to support the NRC staff's detailed technical review by separate correspondenc Based on the information provided in your submittal, the NRC staff has estimated that the review of these relief requests will take approximately 315 hours0.00365 days <br />0.0875 hours <br />5.208333e-4 weeks <br />1.198575e-4 months <br /> to complet The NRC staff expects to complete this review by October 201 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 manage These estimates are based on the NRC staff's initial review of the application and they could change, due to several factors including requests for additional information, and unanticipated addition of scope to the revie Additional delay may occur if the submittal is provided to the NRC in advance or in parallel with industry program initiatives or pilot application Please contact me if you have any question A copy of this email will be made publiclyavailable in ADAM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Rich GuzmanSr. PM, Division Operator Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office: O-9C7 l Phone: (301) 415-1030 Richard.Guzman@nrc.gov