ML16292A449
| ML16292A449 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs, Dresden, Peach Bottom, Nine Mile Point, Byron, Braidwood, Ginna, Clinton, Quad Cities, LaSalle, Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/18/2016 |
| From: | Blake Purnell Plant Licensing Branch III |
| To: | Bryan Hanson Exelon Generation Co |
| Purnell B, NRR-DORL 415-1380 | |
| References | |
| CAC MF8238, CAC MF8239, CAC MF8240, CAC MF8241, CAC MF8242, CAC MF8243, CAC MF8244, CAC MF8245, CAC MF8246, CAC MF8247, CAC MF8248, CAC MF8249, CAC MF8250, CAC MF8251, CAC MF8252, CAC MF8253, CAC MF8254, CAC MF8255, CAC MF8256 | |
| Download: ML16292A449 (4) | |
Text
Mr. Bryan C. Hanson Senior Vice President UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 October 18, 2016 Exelon Generation Company, LLC President and Chief Nuclear Officer (CNO)
Exelon Nuclear 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL 60555
SUBJECT:
BRAIDWOOD STATION, UNITS 1AND2; BYRON STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2; CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1AND2; CLINTON POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 1; DRESDEN NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3; LASALLE COUNTY STATION, UNITS 1AND2; NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1AND2; PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3; QUAD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2; R. E. GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT; AND THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1 -ACCEPTANCE OF REQUESTED LICENSING ACTION TO REVISE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INSERVICE TESTING PROGRAM (CAC NOS. MF8238-MF8256)
Dear Mr. Hanson:
By application dated July 26, 2016 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML16209A218), as supplemented by letter dated October 6, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16280A402), Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon, the licensee) submitted a license amendment request for Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2; Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1; Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3; LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2; Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3; Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2; R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant; and Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1. The proposed amendment would revise the technical specification requirements for the inservice testing program for each of these facilities.
The purpose of this letter is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's acceptance review of this amendment 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.
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 application, as supplemented, 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 staff's 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 staff's detailed technical review by separate correspondence.
Based on the information provided in your submittals the NRC staff has estimated that the review of this licensing request will take approximately 400 hours0.00463 days <br />0.111 hours <br />6.613757e-4 weeks <br />1.522e-4 months <br /> to complete. The NRC staff expects to complete this review by July 26, 2017, as you requested in the application. If there are emergent complexities or challenges in our review that would cause changes to the initial forecasted completion date or significant changes in the forecasted hours, the reasons for the changes, along with the new estimates, will be communicated during the routine interactions with the assigned project manager.
These estimates are based on the NRC staff's initial review of the application, as supplemented, and they could change due to several factors, including requests for additional information, unanticipated addition of scope to the review, and review by NRC advisory committees or hearing-related activities. Additional delay may occur if the submittal is provided to the NRC in advance or in parallel with industry program initiatives or pilot applications.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-1380 or Blake.Purnell@nrc.gov.
Docket Nos. STN 50-456, STN 50-457, Sincerely, Blake Purnell, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 111-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation STN 50-454, STN 50-455, 50-317, 50-318, 50-461, 50-237, 50-249, 50-373, 50-374, 50-220, 50-410, 50-277, 50-278, 50-254, 50-265, 50-244, and 50-289 cc: Distribution via Listserv
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 application, as supplemented, 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 staff's 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 staff's detailed technical review by separate correspondence.
Based on the information provided in your submittals the NRC staff has estimated that the review of this licensing request will take approximately 400 hours0.00463 days <br />0.111 hours <br />6.613757e-4 weeks <br />1.522e-4 months <br /> to complete. The NRC staff expects to complete this review by July 26, 2017, as you requested in the application. If there are emergent complexities or challenges in our review that would cause changes to the initial forecasted completion date or significant changes in the forecasted hours, the reasons for the changes, along with the new estimates, will be communicated during the routine interactions with the assigned project manager.
These estimates are based on the NRC staff's initial review of the application, as supplemented, and they could change due to several factors, including requests for additional information, unanticipated addition of scope to the review, and review by NRC advisory committees or hearing-related activities. Additional delay may occur if the submittal is provided to the NRC in advance or in parallel with industry program initiatives or pilot applications.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-1380 or Blake.Purnell@nrc.gov.
Sincerely, IRA/
Blake Purnell, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 111-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. STN 50-456, STN 50-457, STN 50-454, STN 50-455, 50-317, 50-318, 50-461, 50-237, 50-249, 50-373, 50-37 4, 50-220, 50-410, 50-277, 50-278, 50-254, 50-265, 50-244, and 50-289 cc: Distribution via Listserv DISTRIBUTION:
See next page ADAMS A ccess1on N ML16292A449 o.:
OFFICE DORULPL3-2/PM DORULPL3-2 DSS/STSB/BC NAME BPurnell SRohrer A Klein (LRonewicz for)
DATE 10/18/16 10/18/16 10/17/16
- b DORULPL3-2/BC(A)
GEMiller 10/18/2016 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
'I i/ema1 DORULPL3-2/PM BPurnell 10/18/2016
Letter to Bryan C. Hanson from Blake Purnell dated October 18, 2016
SUBJECT:
BRAIDWOOD STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2; BYRON STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2; CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1AND2; CLINTON POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 1; DRESDEN NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3; LASALLE COUNTY STATION, UNITS 1AND2; NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1AND2; PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3; QUAD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2; R. E. GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT; AND THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1 - ACCEPTANCE OF REQUESTED LICENSING ACTION TO REVISE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INSERVICE TESTING PROGRAM (CAC NOS. MF8238-MF8256)
DISTRIBUTION:
PUBLIC LPL3-2 R/F LPL 1-1 R/F RidsNrrPMExelon Resource RidsNrrDorlLpl1-1 Resource RidsNrrDorlLpl1-2 Resource RidsNrrDorlLpl4-2 Resource RidsNrrLAKGoldstein Resource RidsNrrLASRohrer Resource RidsACRS_MailCTR Resource RidsRgn1 MailCenter Resource RidsNrrPMBraidwood Resource RidsNrrPMClinton Resource RidsNrrPMLaSalle Resource RidsNrrPMCalvertCliffsResource RidsNrrPMDresden Resource RidsNrrPMPeachBottom Resource RidsNrrPMNineMilePoint Resource RidsNrrPMThreeMilelsland Resource LPL 1-2 R/F RidsNrrDssStsb Resource RidsNrrDorlLpl3-2 Resource RidsNrrLALRonewicz Resource RidsRgn3MailCenter Resource RidsNrrPMByron Resource RidsNrrDeEpnb Resource RidsNrrPMQuadCities Resource RidsNrrPMREGinna Resource