ML17150A465: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter: | {{#Wiki_filter:NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: Rankin, Jennivine Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 11:02 AM To: Schrage, John L:(GenCo-Nuc) | ||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
Clinton Power Station - Acceptance Review for License Amendment Request to Adopt TSTF-542 (CAC No. MF9666)Good morning, | Clinton Power Station - Acceptance Review for License Amendment Request to Adopt TSTF-542 (CAC No. MF9666) | ||
Good morning, By letter dated May 1, 2017 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. | |||
By letter dated May 1, 2017 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML17121A517), Exelon Generation Company, LLC (the licensee), submitted a license amendment request for Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1. The proposed amendment would replace existing technical specification requirements related to operations with a potential for draining the reactor vessel with new requirements on reactor pressure vessel water inventory control to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. Safety Limit 2.1.1.3 requires reactor vessel water level to be greater than the top of active irradiated fuel. | ML17121A517), Exelon Generation Company, LLC (the licensee), submitted a license amendment request for Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1. The proposed amendment would replace existing technical specification requirements related to operations with a potential for draining the reactor vessel with new requirements on reactor pressure vessel water inventory control to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. Safety Limit 2.1.1.3 requires reactor vessel water level to be greater than the top of active irradiated fuel. | ||
The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the NRC staffs 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. | |||
The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the NRC | Consistent with Section 50.90 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), an amendment to the license must fully describe the changes requested, and following as far as applicable, the form prescribed for original application. | ||
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 must fully describe the changes requested, and following as far as applicable, the form prescribed for original application. 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. If additional information is needed, you will be advised by separate correspondence. | ||
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 | |||
Based on the information provided in your submittal, the NRC staff has estimated that this licensing request will take approximately 440 hours to complete. The NRC staff expects to complete this review in approximately 12 months, which is May 1, 2018. | Based on the information provided in your submittal, the NRC staff has estimated that this licensing request will take approximately 440 hours to complete. The NRC staff expects to complete this review in approximately 12 months, which is May 1, 2018. | ||
If there are emergent complexities or challenges in our review that would cause | 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, I will communicate the reasons for the changes, along with the new estimates during our routine interactions. | ||
These estimates are based on the 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. | |||
If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-1530. | |||
: Thanks, Jennie 1 | |||
Jennie Rankin, Project Manager Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 2 | |||
Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 3545 Mail Envelope Properties (Jennivine.Rankin@nrc.gov20170530110200) | |||
Hearing Identifier: | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
Clinton Power Station - Acceptance Review for License Amendment Request to Adopt TSTF-542 (CAC No. MF9666) | Clinton Power Station - Acceptance Review for License Amendment Request to Adopt TSTF-542 (CAC No. MF9666) | ||
Sent Date: 5/30/2017 11:02:02 AM Received Date: 5/30/2017 11:02:00 AM From: Rankin, Jennivine Created By: Jennivine.Rankin@nrc.gov Recipients: | |||
Post Office: | "Schrage, John L:(GenCo-Nuc)" <John.Schrage@exeloncorp.com> | ||
Tracking Status: None Post Office: | |||
Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 3370 5/30/2017 11:02:00 AM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: | |||
Recipients Received:}} | |||
Revision as of 02:42, 30 October 2019
| ML17150A465 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 05/30/2017 |
| From: | Jennivine Rankin Plant Licensing Branch III |
| To: | Schrage J Exelon Corp |
| References | |
| MF9666 | |
| Download: ML17150A465 (3) | |
Text
NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: Rankin, Jennivine Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 11:02 AM To: Schrage, John L:(GenCo-Nuc)
Subject:
Clinton Power Station - Acceptance Review for License Amendment Request to Adopt TSTF-542 (CAC No. MF9666)
Good morning, By letter dated May 1, 2017 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No.
ML17121A517), Exelon Generation Company, LLC (the licensee), submitted a license amendment request for Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1. The proposed amendment would replace existing technical specification requirements related to operations with a potential for draining the reactor vessel with new requirements on reactor pressure vessel water inventory control to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. Safety Limit 2.1.1.3 requires reactor vessel water level to be greater than the top of active irradiated fuel.
The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the NRC staffs 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 must fully describe the changes requested, and following as far as applicable, the form prescribed for original application.
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. If additional information is needed, you will be advised by separate correspondence.
Based on the information provided in your submittal, the NRC staff has estimated that this licensing request will take approximately 440 hours0.00509 days <br />0.122 hours <br />7.275132e-4 weeks <br />1.6742e-4 months <br /> to complete. The NRC staff expects to complete this review in approximately 12 months, which is May 1, 2018.
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, I will communicate the reasons for the changes, along with the new estimates during our routine interactions.
These estimates are based on the 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.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-1530.
- Thanks, Jennie 1
Jennie Rankin, Project Manager Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 2
Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 3545 Mail Envelope Properties (Jennivine.Rankin@nrc.gov20170530110200)
Subject:
Clinton Power Station - Acceptance Review for License Amendment Request to Adopt TSTF-542 (CAC No. MF9666)
Sent Date: 5/30/2017 11:02:02 AM Received Date: 5/30/2017 11:02:00 AM From: Rankin, Jennivine Created By: Jennivine.Rankin@nrc.gov Recipients:
"Schrage, John L:(GenCo-Nuc)" <John.Schrage@exeloncorp.com>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 3370 5/30/2017 11:02:00 AM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received: