ML16133A272

Acceptance Review - Peach Bottom 2 and 3 - Relief Request GVRR-2

ML16133A272
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	05/12/2016
From:	Richard Ennis Plant Licensing Branch 1
To:	Hanson S Exelon Generation Co
Ennis R
References
CAC MF7630, CAC MF7631
Download: ML16133A272 (1)

Text

From: Ennis, Rick Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 10:33 AM To: Stephanie.Hanson@exeloncorp.com Cc: David Helker

Subject:

Acceptance Review - Peach Bottom 2 and 3 - Relief Request GVRR-2 (CAC Nos. MF7630 and MF7631)

Stephanie, By letter dated April 27, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16118A414), Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) submitted relief request GVRR-2 associated with the fourth 10-year inservice testing interval for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3.

The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the NRC staffs acceptance review of the proposed 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.

Pursuant to Sections 50.55a(z)(1) and 50.55a(z)(2) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), the applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed alternatives would provide an acceptable level of quality and safety, or that compliance with the specified requirements of Section 50.55a would result in hardship or unusual difficulty without a compensating increase in the level of quality or safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed your application and concluded that it does provide technical information in sufficient detail to enable the staff to proceed with its detailed technical review and make an independent assessment regarding the acceptability of the proposed relief 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. You will be advised of any further information needed to support the NRC staffs detailed technical review by separate correspondence.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-1420.

Richard B. Ennis, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch I-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation