ML15259A329

Acceptance Review

ML15259A329
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	10/01/2015
From:	Shawn Williams Division of Operating Reactor Licensing
To:	Pierce C Southern Nuclear Company
Shawn Williams, 415-1009
References
TAC MF6687, TAC MF6688
Download: ML15259A329 (3)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 October 1, 2015 Mr. C. R. Pierce Regulatory Affairs Director Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.

P. 0. Box 1295 /Bin - 038 Birmingham, AL 35201-1295

SUBJECT:

JOSEPH M. FARLEY, UNITS 1 AND 2 - ACCEPTANCE REVIEW (TAC NOS. MF6687 AND MF6688)

Dear Mr. Pierce:

By letter dated August 31, 2015 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML15261A673), the Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., submitted a request to revise the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 and Unit 2, Technical Specifications. The proposed change would eliminate the Residual Heat Removal autoclosure interlock and its associated Surveillance Requirement.

The purpose of this correspondence is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's acceptance review of this 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.

Consistent with Section 50.90 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), an amendment to the license (including the technical specifications) must fully describe the changes requested, and following as far as applicable, the form prescribed for original applications. Section 50.34 of 10 CFR addresses the content of technical information required.

This section stipulates that the submittal address the design and operating characteristics, unusual or novel design features, and principal safety considerations.

The NRC staff has reviewed your request and concluded that it does provide technical information in sufficient detail to enable the NRC staff to continue 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 in "requests for additional information" despite completion of an adequate acceptance review. You will be advised of any further information needed to support the NRC staff's detailed technical review by separate correspondence.

C.R. Pierce If you have any questions, please contact me on (301) 415-1009.

Sincerely, Shawn Williams, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 11-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos.: 50-348 and 50-364 cc: Distribution via Listserv

ML15259A329 OFFICE NRR/LPLll-1/PM NRR/LPLll-1/LA NRR/LPLll-1/BC NRR/LPLll-1/PM NAME SWilliams SFigueroa RPascarelli SWilliams DATE 9/21/15 9/21/15 10/1/15 10/1/15