ML12331A086
| ML12331A086 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  (DPR-050) |
| Issue date: | 11/26/2012 |
| From: | Peter Bamford Plant Licensing Branch 1 |
| To: | David Helker, Tom Loomis Exelon Generation Co |
| Bamford P, NRR/LPL1-2, 301-415-2833 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML12331A114 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC MF0048 | |
| Download: ML12331A086 (1) | |
Text
From:
Bamford, Peter To:
"thomas.loomis@exeloncorp.com" Cc:
"david.helker@exeloncorp.com"
Subject:
TMI-1 Fifth Interval IST Relief Request VR-02, ASME OM Code Test Frequencies (TAC No. MF0048)
Date:
Monday, November 26, 2012 10:50:00 AM By letter dated November 7, 2012 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML12313A344), Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon, the licensee) submitted three relief requests for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval (PR-01, PR-02, and VR-02). These relief requests apply to the Fifth Inservice Testing Interval at Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1). This acceptance review applies only to request VR-02, Proposed Alternative Concerning ASME OM Code Test Frequencies In Accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(ii). In general, and with some caveats, VR-02 requests that a 25% grace period be allowed for OM Code elapsed interval testing, similar to that allowed by the TMI-1 Technical Specification 1.25.
The purpose of this email is to provide the results of the NRC staff's acceptance review of the subject 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 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 submittal and concluded that the request does provide technical information in sufficient detail to enable the NRC staff to continue with its detailed technical review and make an independent assessment regarding the acceptability of the proposed 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 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.
Peter Bamford NRR/DORL/LPL 1-2 Beaver Valley & TMI-1 Project Manager 301-415-2833