ML14066A133: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML14066A133
| number = ML14066A133
| issue date = 03/07/2014
| issue date = 03/07/2014
| title = Lic 109 Acceptance Review Regarding TAC MF3397 and MF3398 Quad Cities, Units 1 and 2, Inservice Inspection Program Relief Request 14R-20,
| title = NRR E-mail Capture - Lic 109 Acceptance Review Regarding TAC MF3397 and MF3398 Quad Cities, Units 1 and 2, Inservice Inspection Program Relief Request 14R-20,
| author name = Mozafari B L
| author name = Mozafari B
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR/DORL
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR/DORL
| addressee name = Nicely K M
| addressee name = Nicely K
| addressee affiliation = Exelon Corp
| addressee affiliation = Exelon Corp
| docket = 05000254, 05000265
| docket = 05000254, 05000265
Line 18: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:1 NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: Mozafari, Brenda Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 8:35 AM To: Nicely, Ken M.:(GenCo-Nuc) (ken.nicely@exeloncorp.com)
{{#Wiki_filter:NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From:                       Mozafari, Brenda Sent:                       Friday, March 07, 2014 8:35 AM To:                         Nicely, Ken M.:(GenCo-Nuc) (ken.nicely@exeloncorp.com)


==Subject:==
==Subject:==
LIC 109 Acceptance review regarding TAC MF 3397 and MF3398 Quad Cities, Units 1 and 2, Inservice Inspection Progr am Relief Request 14R-20, Ken, We found the Quad Cites 1 and 2 RR I4R-20 letter dated January 23, 2014, (ML14023A865) acceptable for review per LIC 109. However, the review will require an extensive RAI.
LIC 109 Acceptance review regarding TAC MF3397 and MF3398 Quad Cities, Units 1 and 2, Inservice Inspection Program Relief Request 14R-20,
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 tech nical 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.  
: Ken, We found the Quad Cites 1 and 2 RR I4R-20 letter dated January 23, 2014, (ML14023A865) acceptable for review per LIC 109. However, the review will require an extensive RAI.
 
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 application and concluded t hat it provides technical information in sufficient detail to enable the NRC staff to begin a 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  
The NRC staff has reviewed your application and concluded that it provides technical information in sufficient detail to enable the NRC staff to begin a 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. If additional information is needed, you will be advised by separate correspondence.
 
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. If additional information is needed, you will be advised by separate correspondence.  
 
Please contact me if you have any questions. A copy of this email will be made publicly available in ADAMS.
Please contact me if you have any questions. A copy of this email will be made publicly available in ADAMS.
Brenda L. Mozafari Senior Project Manager, NRR/DORL U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  
Brenda L. Mozafari Senior Project Manager, NRR/DORL U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-2020 email: brenda.mozafari@nrc.gov 1
 
301-415-2020  


email: brenda.mozafari@nrc.gov
Hearing Identifier:     NRR_PMDA Email Number:           1148 Mail Envelope Properties     (Brenda.Mozafari@nrc.gov20140307083400)
 
Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 1148   Mail Envelope Properties   (Brenda.Mozafari@nrc.gov20140307083400)


==Subject:==
==Subject:==
LIC 109 Acceptance review regarding TAC MF3397 and MF3398 Quad Cities, Units 1 and 2, Inservice Inspection Program Relief Request 14R-20, Sent Date:   3/7/2014 8:34:36 AM Received Date: 3/7/2014 8:34:00 AM From:   Mozafari, Brenda Created By:   Brenda.Mozafari@nrc.gov Recipients:     "Nicely, Ken M.:(GenCo-Nuc) (ken.nicely@exeloncorp.com)" <ken.nicely@exeloncorp.com> Tracking Status: None  
LIC 109 Acceptance review regarding TAC MF3397 and MF3398 Quad Cities, Units 1 and 2, Inservice Inspection Program Relief Request 14R-20, Sent Date:             3/7/2014 8:34:36 AM Received Date:         3/7/2014 8:34:00 AM From:                   Mozafari, Brenda Created By:             Brenda.Mozafari@nrc.gov Recipients:
 
"Nicely, Ken M.:(GenCo-Nuc) (ken.nicely@exeloncorp.com)" <ken.nicely@exeloncorp.com>
Post Office:     Files     Size     Date & Time MESSAGE   1663     3/7/2014 8:34:00 AM Options Priority:     Standard   Return Notification:   No   Reply Requested:   Yes   Sensitivity:     Normal Expiration Date:     Recipients Received:}}
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
Files                         Size                     Date & Time MESSAGE                       1663                     3/7/2014 8:34:00 AM Options Priority:                     Standard Return Notification:           No Reply Requested:               Yes Sensitivity:                   Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received:}}

Latest revision as of 07:31, 5 December 2019

NRR E-mail Capture - Lic 109 Acceptance Review Regarding TAC MF3397 and MF3398 Quad Cities, Units 1 and 2, Inservice Inspection Program Relief Request 14R-20,
ML14066A133
Person / Time
Site: Quad Cities  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 03/07/2014
From: Mozafari B
Division of Operating Reactor Licensing
To: Nicely K
Exelon Corp
References
MF3397, MF3398
Download: ML14066A133 (2)


Text

NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: Mozafari, Brenda Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 8:35 AM To: Nicely, Ken M.:(GenCo-Nuc) (ken.nicely@exeloncorp.com)

Subject:

LIC 109 Acceptance review regarding TAC MF3397 and MF3398 Quad Cities, Units 1 and 2, Inservice Inspection Program Relief Request 14R-20,

Ken, We found the Quad Cites 1 and 2 RR I4R-20 letter dated January 23, 2014, (ML14023A865) acceptable for review per LIC 109. However, the review will require an extensive RAI.

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 application and concluded that it provides technical information in sufficient detail to enable the NRC staff to begin a 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. If additional information is needed, you will be advised by separate correspondence.

Please contact me if you have any questions. A copy of this email will be made publicly available in ADAMS.

Brenda L. Mozafari Senior Project Manager, NRR/DORL U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-2020 email: brenda.mozafari@nrc.gov 1

Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 1148 Mail Envelope Properties (Brenda.Mozafari@nrc.gov20140307083400)

Subject:

LIC 109 Acceptance review regarding TAC MF3397 and MF3398 Quad Cities, Units 1 and 2, Inservice Inspection Program Relief Request 14R-20, Sent Date: 3/7/2014 8:34:36 AM Received Date: 3/7/2014 8:34:00 AM From: Mozafari, Brenda Created By: Brenda.Mozafari@nrc.gov Recipients:

"Nicely, Ken M.:(GenCo-Nuc) (ken.nicely@exeloncorp.com)" <ken.nicely@exeloncorp.com>

Tracking Status: None Post Office:

Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 1663 3/7/2014 8:34:00 AM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: Yes Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received: