ML15113A636: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 14: Line 14:
| page count = 1
| page count = 1
| project = TAC:MF6083
| project = TAC:MF6083
| stage =
}}
}}



Revision as of 06:17, 30 March 2018

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 3 - Acceptance of Relief Request 53 (TAC No. MF6083)
ML15113A636
Person / Time
Site: Palo Verde Arizona Public Service icon.png
Issue date: 04/22/2015
From: Watford M M
Plant Licensing Branch IV
To: Weber T N
Arizona Public Service Co
Watford M M
References
TAC MF6083
Download: ML15113A636 (1)


Text

From:Watford, MargaretTo:Thomas.N.Weber@aps.comCc:Carl.stephenson@aps.com; Delbert.Elkinton@aps.comSubject:Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 3 - Acceptance of Relief Request 53 (TAC No. MF6083)Date:Wednesday, April 22, 2015 5:08:00 PMTom, By letter dated April 17, 2015, Arizona Public Service Company submitted Relief Request 53 for the repair of the differential pressure instrumentation nozzle on the suction side of the 2A reactor coolant pump at Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 3. The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's acceptance review of this 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. The acceptance review is also intended 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 NRC staff has reviewed your request 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 relief 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 issues that impact the NRC staff's ability to complete the detailed technical review are identified despite completion of an adequate acceptance review. If additional information is needed, you will be advised by separate correspondence.

If you have any questions, please contact me. Margaret M. Watford, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch IV 1Division of Operating Reactor LicensingOffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation