ML16069A169: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| number = ML16069A169 | | number = ML16069A169 | ||
| issue date = 03/15/2016 | | issue date = 03/15/2016 | ||
| title = Response to Your Letter Dated November 6, 2015 Regarding Schedule and Costs Associated with Issuance of Amendment Revising the Ultimate Heat Sink Temperature Limit | | title = Response to Your Letter Dated November 6, 2015 Regarding Schedule and Costs Associated with Issuance of Amendment Revising the Ultimate Heat Sink Temperature Limit | ||
| author name = Boland A | | author name = Boland A | ||
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR/DORL | | author affiliation = NRC/NRR/DORL | ||
| addressee name = Fewell J | | addressee name = Fewell J | ||
| addressee affiliation = Exelon Generation Co, LLC | | addressee affiliation = Exelon Generation Co, LLC | ||
| docket = 05000373, 05000374 | | docket = 05000373, 05000374 | ||
| license number = NPF-011, NPF-018 | | license number = NPF-011, NPF-018 | ||
| contact person = Vaidya B | | contact person = Vaidya B, NRR/DORL/LPL3-1, 415-3308 | ||
| case reference number = CAC MF9076, CAC MF9077 | | case reference number = CAC MF9076, CAC MF9077 | ||
| document type = Letter | | document type = Letter | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter: | {{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 March 15, 2016 Mr. J. Bradley Fewell Senior Vice president Regulatory Affairs Exelon Generation Company, LLC 200 Exelon Way Kennett Square, PA 19348 | ||
==SUBJECT:== | ==SUBJECT:== | ||
LASALLE COUNTY STATION, UNITS 1AND2 -RESPONSE TO YOUR LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 6, 2015, REGARDING SCHEDULE AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT REVISING THE | LASALLE COUNTY STATION, UNITS 1AND2 - RESPONSE TO YOUR LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 6, 2015, REGARDING SCHEDULE AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT REVISING THE ULTl MATE HEAT SINK TEMPERATURE LIMIT (CAC NOS. ME9076 AND ME9077) | ||
==Dear Mr. Fewell:== | ==Dear Mr. Fewell:== | ||
By letter dated November 6, 2015 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML 1531OA173), Exelon Generation Company, LLS (Exelon) expressed several concerns regarding the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) review of your license amendment request (LAR) to revise the temperature of the ultimate heat sink (UHS) at LaSalle County Station (LSCS), Units 1 and 2. The NRC issued the amendment on November 19, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. | |||
The NRC shares Exelon's view that a predictable and transparent LAR review process is aligned with the Principles of Good Regulation and is essential to ensuring NRC efficiency and reliability. | By letter dated November 6, 2015 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML 1531OA173), Exelon Generation Company, LLS (Exelon) expressed several concerns regarding the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) review of your license amendment request (LAR) to revise the temperature of the ultimate heat sink (UHS) at LaSalle County Station (LSCS), Units 1 and 2. The NRC issued the amendment on November 19, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15202A578). | ||
With that in mind, the NRC staff conducted a lessons-learned evaluation associated with the LSCS UHS LAR review. The NRC staff's evaluation identified that: the LAR could have been identified as unusually complex earlier in the review process; gaps existed in the internal expertise available to validate key UHS assumptions; turnovers in Project Managers and technical reviewers challenged continuity during the review; tracking of hours in excess of initial estimates was not well monitored; and earlier contractor engagement, improved oversight, and a better understanding of the contractor's availability/capability could have improved LAR timeliness. | The NRC shares Exelon's view that a predictable and transparent LAR review process is aligned with the Principles of Good Regulation and is essential to ensuring NRC efficiency and reliability. With that in mind, the NRC staff conducted a lessons-learned evaluation associated with the LSCS UHS LAR review. | ||
These learned are being shared with a wide audience of project managers, technical reviewers, and management in the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and the Office of New Reactors. | The NRC staff's evaluation identified that: the LAR could have been identified as unusually complex earlier in the review process; gaps existed in the internal expertise available to validate key UHS assumptions; turnovers in Project Managers and technical reviewers challenged continuity during the review; tracking of hours in excess of initial estimates was not well monitored; and earlier contractor engagement, improved oversight, and a better understanding of the contractor's availability/capability could have improved LAR timeliness. These lessons-learned are being shared with a wide audience of project managers, technical reviewers, and management in the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and the Office of New Reactors. | ||
Our review also identified that the significant supplement to the original Exelon submittal, and the subsequent request-for-additional-information responses which substantially revised previous information and methodologies, contributed to the lengthy LAR review. A number of internal corrective actions have been completed or are underway. | Our review also identified that the significant supplement to the original Exelon submittal, and the subsequent request-for-additional-information responses which substantially revised previous information and methodologies, contributed to the lengthy LAR review. | ||
For instance, workload management oversight and tracking processes were modified to more closely monitor work hour expenditures, and continue to evolve and be improved. | A number of internal corrective actions have been completed or are underway. For instance, workload management oversight and tracking processes were modified to more closely monitor work hour expenditures, and continue to evolve and be improved. In addition, changes are being implemented to our Acceptance Review Procedure and a new tracking system, expected to come on line during the summer of 2016, will incorporate capabilities to better assess the status of our reviews and provide early indicators when LARs become delayed. | ||
In addition, changes are being implemented to our Acceptance Review Procedure and a new tracking system, expected to come on line during the summer of 2016, will incorporate capabilities to better assess the status of our reviews and provide early indicators when LARs become delayed. | |||
J. Fewell The NRC appreciates Exelon's input regarding the amendment review process and would like to assure you that the NRC will continue to monitor the effectiveness and efficiency of the LAA review process. | J. Fewell The NRC appreciates Exelon's input regarding the amendment review process and would like to assure you that the NRC will continue to monitor the effectiveness and efficiency of the LAA review process. | ||
* ion of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation | Sincerely, Anne . Boland, Director, D" | ||
* ion of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-37 4 cc: Mr. Bryan C. Hanson Senior Vice President Exelon Generation Company, LLC President and Chief Nuclear Officer (CNO) | |||
DORL/DD DORL/D OFFICE BVaidva SRohrer JPoole PKrohn ABolamd DATE 3/15/16 3/15/16 3/15/16 3/10/16 3/15/16 | Exelon Nuclear 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL 60555 Distribution via ListServ | ||
ML16069A169 NAME DORL/LPL3-2PM DORL/LPL3-2LA DORL/LPL3-2/BC(A) DORL/DD DORL/D OFFICE BVaidva SRohrer JPoole PKrohn ABolamd DATE 3/15/16 3/15/16 3/15/16 3/10/16 3/15/16}} | |||
Latest revision as of 05:42, 19 March 2020
| ML16069A169 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 03/15/2016 |
| From: | Boland A Division of Operating Reactor Licensing |
| To: | Fewell J Exelon Generation Co |
| Vaidya B, NRR/DORL/LPL3-1, 415-3308 | |
| References | |
| CAC MF9076, CAC MF9077 | |
| Download: ML16069A169 (3) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 March 15, 2016 Mr. J. Bradley Fewell Senior Vice president Regulatory Affairs Exelon Generation Company, LLC 200 Exelon Way Kennett Square, PA 19348
SUBJECT:
LASALLE COUNTY STATION, UNITS 1AND2 - RESPONSE TO YOUR LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 6, 2015, REGARDING SCHEDULE AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT REVISING THE ULTl MATE HEAT SINK TEMPERATURE LIMIT (CAC NOS. ME9076 AND ME9077)
Dear Mr. Fewell:
By letter dated November 6, 2015 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML 1531OA173), Exelon Generation Company, LLS (Exelon) expressed several concerns regarding the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) review of your license amendment request (LAR) to revise the temperature of the ultimate heat sink (UHS) at LaSalle County Station (LSCS), Units 1 and 2. The NRC issued the amendment on November 19, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15202A578).
The NRC shares Exelon's view that a predictable and transparent LAR review process is aligned with the Principles of Good Regulation and is essential to ensuring NRC efficiency and reliability. With that in mind, the NRC staff conducted a lessons-learned evaluation associated with the LSCS UHS LAR review.
The NRC staff's evaluation identified that: the LAR could have been identified as unusually complex earlier in the review process; gaps existed in the internal expertise available to validate key UHS assumptions; turnovers in Project Managers and technical reviewers challenged continuity during the review; tracking of hours in excess of initial estimates was not well monitored; and earlier contractor engagement, improved oversight, and a better understanding of the contractor's availability/capability could have improved LAR timeliness. These lessons-learned are being shared with a wide audience of project managers, technical reviewers, and management in the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and the Office of New Reactors.
Our review also identified that the significant supplement to the original Exelon submittal, and the subsequent request-for-additional-information responses which substantially revised previous information and methodologies, contributed to the lengthy LAR review.
A number of internal corrective actions have been completed or are underway. For instance, workload management oversight and tracking processes were modified to more closely monitor work hour expenditures, and continue to evolve and be improved. In addition, changes are being implemented to our Acceptance Review Procedure and a new tracking system, expected to come on line during the summer of 2016, will incorporate capabilities to better assess the status of our reviews and provide early indicators when LARs become delayed.
J. Fewell The NRC appreciates Exelon's input regarding the amendment review process and would like to assure you that the NRC will continue to monitor the effectiveness and efficiency of the LAA review process.
Sincerely, Anne . Boland, Director, D"
- ion of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-37 4 cc: Mr. Bryan C. Hanson Senior Vice President Exelon Generation Company, LLC President and Chief Nuclear Officer (CNO)
Exelon Nuclear 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL 60555 Distribution via ListServ
ML16069A169 NAME DORL/LPL3-2PM DORL/LPL3-2LA DORL/LPL3-2/BC(A) DORL/DD DORL/D OFFICE BVaidva SRohrer JPoole PKrohn ABolamd DATE 3/15/16 3/15/16 3/15/16 3/10/16 3/15/16