ML16334A300: 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 = ML16334A300 | | number = ML16334A300 | ||
| issue date = 11/29/2016 | | issue date = 11/29/2016 | ||
| title = Acceptance Review (CAC No. MF8525) Fort Calhoun, Unit 1 - License Amendment Request LAR-16-04 to Revise Current Licensing Basis to Use Aci Ultimate Strength Requirements | | title = NRR E-mail Capture - Acceptance Review (CAC No. MF8525) Fort Calhoun, Unit 1 - License Amendment Request LAR-16-04 to Revise Current Licensing Basis to Use Aci Ultimate Strength Requirements | ||
| author name = Lyon F | | author name = Lyon F | ||
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR/DORL/LPLIV-1 | | author affiliation = NRC/NRR/DORL/LPLIV-1 | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter: | {{#Wiki_filter:NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: Lyon, Fred Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 11:05 AM To: MATZKE, ERICK P | ||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
Acceptance Review (CAC No. MF8525)By letter dated October 25, 2016, OPPD submitted a license amendment request to revise Section 5.11 of the Fort Calhoun Station (FCS) updated safety analysis report (USAR) to change the structural design methodology for the Auxiliary Building at FCS. Specifically, this LAR proposes the following for future design and evaluation of Auxiliary Building reinforced concrete structural elements: | Acceptance Review (CAC No. MF8525) | ||
: 1. Use of ultimate strength design methodology for normal operating/service loading conditions, 2. Use of higher concrete compressive strength value based on original strength test data, | By letter dated October 25, 2016, OPPD submitted a license amendment request to revise Section 5.11 of the Fort Calhoun Station (FCS) updated safety analysis report (USAR) to change the structural design methodology for the Auxiliary Building at FCS. Specifically, this LAR proposes the following for future design and evaluation of Auxiliary Building reinforced concrete structural elements: | ||
: 1. Use of ultimate strength design methodology for normal operating/service loading conditions, | |||
: 2. Use of higher concrete compressive strength value based on original strength test data, | |||
: 3. Use of higher reinforcing steel yield strength value based on original strength test data, and | : 3. Use of higher reinforcing steel yield strength value based on original strength test data, and | ||
: 4. Minor USAR clarification to add a definition of control fluids to the dead load section. | : 4. Minor USAR clarification to add a definition of control fluids to the dead load section. | ||
The purpose of this letter is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs acceptance review of this 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. | |||
The purpose of this letter is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) | |||
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. | 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 and concluded that it does provide technical information in | The NRC staff has reviewed your application 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 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. | ||
Based on the information provided in your submittal, the NRC staff has estimated that this licensing request will take approximately [[estimated NRC review hours::100 hours]] to complete. The NRC staff expects to complete this review in approximately 12 months, which is October 2017. 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 staffs initial review of the application 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. | |||
1 | |||
Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 3184 Mail Envelope Properties (Fred.Lyon@nrc.gov20161129110500) | |||
Hearing Identifier: | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
Acceptance Review (CAC No. MF8525) | Acceptance Review (CAC No. MF8525) | ||
Tracking Status: None Post Office: | Sent Date: 11/29/2016 11:05:16 AM Received Date: 11/29/2016 11:05:00 AM From: Lyon, Fred Created By: Fred.Lyon@nrc.gov Recipients: | ||
"MATZKE, ERICK P" <ematzke@oppd.com> | |||
Options | Tracking Status: None Post Office: | ||
Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 3691 11/29/2016 11:05:00 AM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: | |||
Recipients Received:}} | |||
Latest revision as of 01:47, 9 March 2020
| ML16334A300 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 11/29/2016 |
| From: | Lyon F Plant Licensing Branch IV |
| To: | Matzke E Omaha Public Power District |
| References | |
| LAR-16-04, LIC-16-0093, MF8525 | |
| Download: ML16334A300 (2) | |
Text
NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: Lyon, Fred Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 11:05 AM To: MATZKE, ERICK P
Subject:
Acceptance Review (CAC No. MF8525)
By letter dated October 25, 2016, OPPD submitted a license amendment request to revise Section 5.11 of the Fort Calhoun Station (FCS) updated safety analysis report (USAR) to change the structural design methodology for the Auxiliary Building at FCS. Specifically, this LAR proposes the following for future design and evaluation of Auxiliary Building reinforced concrete structural elements:
- 1. Use of ultimate strength design methodology for normal operating/service loading conditions,
- 2. Use of higher concrete compressive strength value based on original strength test data,
- 3. Use of higher reinforcing steel yield strength value based on original strength test data, and
- 4. Minor USAR clarification to add a definition of control fluids to the dead load section.
The purpose of this letter is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs acceptance review of this 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 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 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.
Based on the information provided in your submittal, the NRC staff has estimated that this licensing request will take approximately 100 hours4.167 days <br />0.595 weeks <br />0.137 months <br /> to complete. The NRC staff expects to complete this review in approximately 12 months, which is October 2017. 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 staffs initial review of the application 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.
1
Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 3184 Mail Envelope Properties (Fred.Lyon@nrc.gov20161129110500)
Subject:
Acceptance Review (CAC No. MF8525)
Sent Date: 11/29/2016 11:05:16 AM Received Date: 11/29/2016 11:05:00 AM From: Lyon, Fred Created By: Fred.Lyon@nrc.gov Recipients:
"MATZKE, ERICK P" <ematzke@oppd.com>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 3691 11/29/2016 11:05:00 AM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received: