ML040620143: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:October 9, 2003 MEMORANDUM TO: James E. Dyer, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: | {{#Wiki_filter:October 9, 2003 MEMORANDUM TO: James E. Dyer, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: | ||
John T. Larkins, Executive Director | |||
/RA/ | |||
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards | ||
| Line 26: | Line 28: | ||
The Committee agrees with the additional amplifying criteria provided in the September 16 memo for Committee involvement in power uprates reviews. Your staff will continue to notify the Committee of all power uprate requests above five percent. However, when the staff believes that the license amendment request is not complex and does not involve important changes or potentially higher impacts to the plant, the staff will describe the proposed changes in its recommendation that the Committee not become involved in the licensing review. For power uprate requests of less than five percent, if the uprate request does involve important changes to the plant or potentially higher impacts, or if it presents novel issues that the staff believes might benefit from Committee participation, then the staff will inform the Committee and invite it to participate in the review. | The Committee agrees with the additional amplifying criteria provided in the September 16 memo for Committee involvement in power uprates reviews. Your staff will continue to notify the Committee of all power uprate requests above five percent. However, when the staff believes that the license amendment request is not complex and does not involve important changes or potentially higher impacts to the plant, the staff will describe the proposed changes in its recommendation that the Committee not become involved in the licensing review. For power uprate requests of less than five percent, if the uprate request does involve important changes to the plant or potentially higher impacts, or if it presents novel issues that the staff believes might benefit from Committee participation, then the staff will inform the Committee and invite it to participate in the review. | ||
The Committee does not expect a written response to this memorandum. | The Committee does not expect a written response to this memorandum. | ||
cc: | cc: | ||
T. Marsh, NRR J. Lamb, NRR T. Harris, NRR W. Ruland, NRR L. Raghavan, NRR}} | |||
Latest revision as of 04:41, 16 January 2025
| ML040620143 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Kewaunee  |
| Issue date: | 10/09/2003 |
| From: | Larkins J Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Dyer J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Caruso R, ACRS/NRC, 415-8065 | |
| References | |
| GT350, TAC MB9031 | |
| Download: ML040620143 (1) | |
Text
October 9, 2003 MEMORANDUM TO: James E. Dyer, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
John T. Larkins, Executive Director
/RA/
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
SUBJECT:
KEWAUNEE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT - ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFETY REVIEW OF STRETCH POWER UPRATE AMENDMENT (TAC NO. MB9031)
During the 505th meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, September 10-13, 2003, the Committee considered the recommendation made in a memorandum to me dated September 16, 2003, from Ledyard B. Marsh, NRR, that the Committee not review the stretch power uprate request from the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant (KNPP) licensee. The memo characterized the KNPP power uprate request as essentially a six percent stretch power uprate with minor modifications. The Committee has decided to accept your staffs recommendation and not review the KNPP power uprate request.
The Committee agrees with the additional amplifying criteria provided in the September 16 memo for Committee involvement in power uprates reviews. Your staff will continue to notify the Committee of all power uprate requests above five percent. However, when the staff believes that the license amendment request is not complex and does not involve important changes or potentially higher impacts to the plant, the staff will describe the proposed changes in its recommendation that the Committee not become involved in the licensing review. For power uprate requests of less than five percent, if the uprate request does involve important changes to the plant or potentially higher impacts, or if it presents novel issues that the staff believes might benefit from Committee participation, then the staff will inform the Committee and invite it to participate in the review.
The Committee does not expect a written response to this memorandum.
cc:
T. Marsh, NRR J. Lamb, NRR T. Harris, NRR W. Ruland, NRR L. Raghavan, NRR