Letter Sequence Acceptance Review |
|---|
|
|
MONTHYEARL-11-021, Proposed 10 CFR 50.55a Request VRR4 Regarding Pressurizer Safety Valve Test Frequency2011-02-21021 February 2011
Proposed 10 CFR 50.55a Request VRR4 Regarding Pressurizer Safety Valve Test Frequency
Project stage: Request
L-11-020, 10 CFR 50.55a Request VRR3 Regarding Solenoid Operated Valve Remote Position Verification Frequency2011-02-21021 February 2011
10 CFR 50.55a Request VRR3 Regarding Solenoid Operated Valve Remote Position Verification Frequency
Project stage: Request
ML1106102052011-02-25025 February 2011
CFR 50.55a Request (VRR5) Regarding Turbine Driven Auxiliary Feedwater Valve Test Frequency
Project stage: Request
L-11-023, Request (VRR5) Regarding Turbine Driven Auxiliary Feedwater Valve Test Frequency2011-02-25025 February 2011
Request (VRR5) Regarding Turbine Driven Auxiliary Feedwater Valve Test Frequency
Project stage: Request
ML1108804692011-03-29029 March 2011
Acceptance Review Results Regarding Relief Request VRR3, VRR4, and VRR5 (ME5749, ME5750, ME5752, ME5781, and ME5782)
Project stage: Acceptance Review
ML1123107372011-08-22022 August 2011
Request for Additional Information Regarding Relief Requests VRR3 and VRR4
Project stage: RAI
L-11-275, Reply to Request for Additional Information Regarding 10 CFR 50.55a Requests VRR3 and VRR42011-09-14014 September 2011
Reply to Request for Additional Information Regarding 10 CFR 50.55a Requests VRR3 and VRR4
Project stage: Response to RAI
ML11325A0032011-11-18018 November 2011
2 Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 2 SER VRR4 Class 1 SRV Test Frequency
Project stage: Other
ML11325A0022011-11-18018 November 2011
SER VRR3 SOV CIV Remote Position Verification Frequency
Project stage: Other
ML11325A0012011-11-18018 November 2011
Email- Beaver Valley Units 1 and 2 Safety Evaluation (SE) for Request VRR3 (ME5749 & ME5750) and Beaver Valley Unit 2 SE for Request VRR4 (ME5752)
Project stage: Approval
ML1131304282011-11-22022 November 2011
Relief Request VRR5 Regarding Turbine Driven Auxiliary Feedwater Valve Test Frequency for the 10-Year Inservice Testing Program Interval
Project stage: Approval
ML1202702982012-02-0707 February 2012
Relief Request VRR3 Regarding Solenoid Operated Valve Remote Position Verification Frequency
Project stage: Approval
ML1203303292012-02-0707 February 2012
Relief Request VRR4 Regarding Pressurizer Safety Valve Test Frequency
Project stage: Approval
2011-02-25
[Table View] |
Acceptance Review Results Regarding Relief Request VRR3, VRR4, and VRR5 (ME5749, ME5750, ME5752, ME5781, and ME5782)| ML110880469 |
| Person / Time |
|---|
| Site: |
Beaver Valley |
|---|
| Issue date: |
03/29/2011 |
|---|
| From: |
Nadiyah Morgan
Plant Licensing Branch 1 |
|---|
| To: |
Lashley P
FirstEnergy Corp |
|---|
| Morgan N, NRR/DORL, 415-1016 |
| References |
|---|
| TAC ME5749, TAC ME5750, TAC ME5752, TAC ME5781, TAC ME5782 |
| Download: ML110880469 (1) |
|
Text
From:
Morgan, Nadiyah Sent:
Tuesday, March 29, 2011 11:52 AM To:
phlashley@firstenergycorp.com Cc:
'jfirestone@firstenergycorp.com'
Subject:
Acceptance Review Results Regarding Relief Request VRR3, VRR4, and VRR5 (ME5749, ME5750, ME5752, ME5781, and ME5782)
Phil, By letters dated February 21 and February 25, 2011, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company submitted three relief requests for Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs acceptance review of the subject relief requests. 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 staffs 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.
- Thanks, Dee Nadiyah S. Morgan Beaver Valley Project Manager Nuclear Regulatory Commission (301) 415-1016 Nadiyah.Morgan@NRC.GOV