ML12321A092: 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)
Line 18: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:From:Bamford, PeterTo:"thomas.loomis@exeloncorp.com"Cc:"david.helker@exeloncorp.com"
{{#Wiki_filter:From:Bamford, Peter To: "thomas.loomis@exeloncorp.com" Cc: "david.helker@exeloncorp.com"  


==Subject:==
==Subject:==
Acceptance Review of TMI-1 Relief Request VR-01, Proposed Pressurizer Pilot Operated Relief Valve AlternativeTesting (TAC NO. ME9819)Date:Friday, November 16, 2012 8:55:00 AMBy letter dated October 18, 2012 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML12292A585), Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) submitted a relief request for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval. In therelief request, Exelon states that the proposed alternative testing of a Pilot Operated Relief Valve at Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1, is in lieu of meeting certain requirements of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants, 2004 Edition with addenda through OMb-2006.
Acceptance Review of TMI-1 Relief Request VR-01, Proposed Pressurizer Pilot Operated Relief Valve AlternativeTesting (TAC NO. ME9819)
Date:Friday, November 16, 2012 8:55:00 AMBy letter dated October 18, 2012 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML12292A585), Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) submitted a relief request for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval.
In therelief request, Exelon states that the proposed alternative testing of a Pilot Operated Relief Valve at Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1, is in lieu of meeting certain requirements of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants, 2004 Edition with addenda through OMb-2006.


The purpose of this email is to provide the results of the NRC staff's acceptance review of the subject relief request. The acceptance review was performed to determine if there issufficient 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 theapplication has any readily apparent information insufficiencies in its characterization of the regulatory requirements or the licensing basis of the plant.
The purpose of this email is to provide the results of the NRC staff's acceptance review of the subject relief request.
The NRC staff has reviewed your submittal and concluded that the request does provide technical information in sufficient detail to enable the NRC staff to continue with its detailed technical review and make an independent assessment regarding the acceptability of the proposed 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 acceptancereview 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 informationis needed, you will be advised by separate correspondence.
The acceptance review was performed to determine if there issufficient technical information in scope and depth to allow the NRC staff to complete its detailed technical review.
Peter Bamford NRR/DORL/LPL 1-2Beaver Valley & TMI-1 Project Manager  301-415-2833
The acceptance review is also intended to identify whether theapplication 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 submittal and concluded that the request does provide technical information in sufficient detail to enable the NRC staff to continue with its detailed technical review and make an independent assessment regarding the acceptability of the proposed 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 acceptancereview 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 informationis needed, you will be advised by separate correspondence.
 
Peter Bamford NRR/DORL/LPL 1-2Beaver Valley & TMI-1 Project Manager  301-415-2833}}

Revision as of 05:15, 23 July 2018

Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 - E-mail Acceptance Review (TAC No. ME9819)
ML12321A092
Person / Time
Site: Three Mile Island Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 11/16/2012
From: Bamford P J
Plant Licensing Branch 1
To: David Helker, Tom Loomis
Exelon Generation Co
Bamford P J
References
TAC ME9819
Download: ML12321A092 (1)
v • d • e


Text

From:Bamford, Peter To: "thomas.loomis@exeloncorp.com" Cc: "david.helker@exeloncorp.com"

Subject:

Acceptance Review of TMI-1 Relief Request VR-01, Proposed Pressurizer Pilot Operated Relief Valve AlternativeTesting (TAC NO. ME9819)

Date:Friday, November 16, 2012 8:55:00 AMBy letter dated October 18, 2012 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML12292A585), Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) submitted a relief request for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval.

In therelief request, Exelon states that the proposed alternative testing of a Pilot Operated Relief Valve at Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1, is in lieu of meeting certain requirements of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants, 2004 Edition with addenda through OMb-2006.

The purpose of this email is to provide the results of the NRC staff's acceptance review of the subject relief request.

The acceptance review was performed to determine if there issufficient 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 theapplication 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 submittal and concluded that the request does provide technical information in sufficient detail to enable the NRC staff to continue with its detailed technical review and make an independent assessment regarding the acceptability of the proposed 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 acceptancereview 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 informationis needed, you will be advised by separate correspondence.

Peter Bamford NRR/DORL/LPL 1-2Beaver Valley & TMI-1 Project Manager 301-415-2833

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML12321A092&oldid=909891"