ML17093A882: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:1NRR-PMDAPEm | {{#Wiki_filter:1NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From:Kuntz, Robert Sent:Monday, April 03, 2017 2:18 PM To:Fields, John S. | ||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
==SUBJECT:== | ==SUBJECT:== | ||
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant - Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Re: Amendment to Revise Emergency Plan Staff Augmentation Response Times (CAC NO. MF9467)Mr. Fields, By letter dated March 24, 2017, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation (NSPM), doing business as Xcel Energy, submitted a license amendment for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP) to extend emergency response times for staff augmentation. 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 amendment. 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. | Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant - Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Re: Amendment to Revise Emergency Plan Staff Augmentation Response Times (CAC NO. MF9467)Mr. Fields, | ||
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 amendment 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. | |||
Based on the information provided in your submittal and discussions during the pre-licensing meeting on February 7, 2017, the NRC staff has estimated that this licensing request will take approximately [[estimated NRC review hours::260 hours]] to complete. The NRC staff expects to complete this review in approximately 11 months, which is February 2018. If there are emergent complexities or challenges in our review that would cause changes to the initial forecasted completion date or significant changes in the forecasted hours, the reasons for the changes, along with the new estimates, will be communicated during the routine interactions with the assigned project manager. | By letter dated March 24, 2017, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation (NSPM), doing business as Xcel Energy, submitted a license amendment for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP) to extend emergency response times for staff augmentation. 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 amendment. 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. | ||
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, unanticipated addition of scope to the review, and review by NRC advisory committees or hearing-related activities. | |||
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 amendment 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. | |||
Based on the information provided in your submittal and discussions during the pre-licensing meeting on February 7, 2017, the NRC staff has estimated that this licensing request will take approximately [[estimated NRC review hours::260 hours]] to complete. The NRC staff expects to complete this review in approximately 11 months, which is February 2018. If there are emergent complexities or challenges in our review that would cause changes to the initial forecasted completion date or significant changes in the forecasted hours, 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 NRC staff's 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. | |||
If you have any questions, please contact me. | If you have any questions, please contact me. | ||
Robert F. Kuntz, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 3 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation | Robert F. Kuntz, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 3 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation | ||
Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA | Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 3426 Mail Envelope Properties (Robert.Kuntz@nrc.gov20170403141700) | ||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
| Line 37: | Line 43: | ||
==SUBJECT:== | ==SUBJECT:== | ||
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant - Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Re: Amendment to Revise Emergency Plan Staff Augmentation Response Times (CAC NO. MF9467) | Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant - Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Re: Amendment to Revise Emergency Plan Staff Augmentation Response Times (CAC NO. MF9467) | ||
Sent Date: 4/3/2017 2:17:31 PM Received Date: 4/3/2017 2:17:00 PM | Sent Date: 4/3/2017 2:17:31 PM Received Date: 4/3/2017 2:17:00 PM From: Kuntz, Robert Created By: Robert.Kuntz@nrc.gov | ||
Recipients: "Fields, John S." <John.Fields@xenuclear.com> Tracking Status: None Post Office: Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 2729 4/3/2017 2:17:00 PM | |||
Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: Recipients Received:}} | |||
Revision as of 20:47, 29 June 2018
| ML17093A882 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 04/03/2017 |
| From: | Kuntz R F Plant Licensing Branch III |
| To: | Fields J S Xcel Energy |
| References | |
| MF9467 | |
| Download: ML17093A882 (2) | |
Text
1NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From:Kuntz, Robert Sent:Monday, April 03, 2017 2:18 PM To:Fields, John S.
Subject:
SUBJECT:
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant - Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Re: Amendment to Revise Emergency Plan Staff Augmentation Response Times (CAC NO. MF9467)Mr. Fields,
By letter dated March 24, 2017, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation (NSPM), doing business as Xcel Energy, submitted a license amendment for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP) to extend emergency response times for staff augmentation. 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 amendment. 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.
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 amendment 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.
Based on the information provided in your submittal and discussions during the pre-licensing meeting on February 7, 2017, the NRC staff has estimated that this licensing request will take approximately 260 hours10.833 days <br />1.548 weeks <br />0.356 months <br /> to complete. The NRC staff expects to complete this review in approximately 11 months, which is February 2018. If there are emergent complexities or challenges in our review that would cause changes to the initial forecasted completion date or significant changes in the forecasted hours, 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 NRC staff's 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.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Robert F. Kuntz, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 3 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 3426 Mail Envelope Properties (Robert.Kuntz@nrc.gov20170403141700)
Subject:
SUBJECT:
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant - Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Re: Amendment to Revise Emergency Plan Staff Augmentation Response Times (CAC NO. MF9467)
Sent Date: 4/3/2017 2:17:31 PM Received Date: 4/3/2017 2:17:00 PM From: Kuntz, Robert Created By: Robert.Kuntz@nrc.gov
Recipients: "Fields, John S." <John.Fields@xenuclear.com> Tracking Status: None Post Office: Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 2729 4/3/2017 2:17:00 PM
Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: Recipients Received: