ML16064A004

E-mail from R.Guzman to W.Craft Acceptance Review Determination - License Amendment Request to Revise ECCS TS 3/4.5.2 and FSAR Ch 14 Charging (MF7297)

ML16064A004
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	03/03/2016
From:	Richard Guzman Plant Licensing Branch 1
To:	Craft W Dominion Nuclear Connecticut
Guzman R
References
MF7297
Download: ML16064A004 (1)

Text

From: Guzman, Richard Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 1:05 PM To: 'wanda.d.craft@dom.com'

Subject:

RE: Acceptance Review Determination - Millstone Power Station Unit 2

- License Amendment Request to Revise ECCS TS 3/4.5.2 and FSAR Ch 14 Charging(MF7297)

Wanda, The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the NRC staffs acceptance review of the subject license amendment request (LAR).

By letter dated January 25, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16029A168), Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (DNC) submitted an LAR proposing to revise the MPS2 Technical Specification (TS) 3.5.2 to remove the charging system and eliminate Surveillance Requirement 4.5.2.e from TSs. Certain sections in Chapter 14 of the MPS2 FSAR would also be revised as part of the proposed 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 DNCs application and concludes 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. You will be advised of any further information needed to support the NRC staffs detailed technical review by separate correspondence.

Thanks,

~~~~~~~~~

Rich Guzman Sr. Project Manager NRR/DORL USNRC 301-415-1030

From: Guzman, Richard Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 1:05 PM To: 'wanda.d.craft@dom.com'

Subject:

RE: Acceptance Review Determination - Millstone Power Station Unit 2

- License Amendment Request to Revise ECCS TS 3/4.5.2 and FSAR Ch 14 Charging(MF7297)

Wanda, The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the NRC staffs acceptance review of the subject license amendment request (LAR).

By letter dated January 25, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16029A168), Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (DNC) submitted an LAR proposing to revise the MPS2 Technical Specification (TS) 3.5.2 to remove the charging system and eliminate Surveillance Requirement 4.5.2.e from TSs. Certain sections in Chapter 14 of the MPS2 FSAR would also be revised as part of the proposed 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 DNCs application and concludes 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. You will be advised of any further information needed to support the NRC staffs detailed technical review by separate correspondence.

Thanks,

~~~~~~~~~

Rich Guzman Sr. Project Manager NRR/DORL USNRC 301-415-1030