ML17170A173: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
ACCEPTANCE REVIEW: FitzPatrick Proposed Alternative -Relief RR-001 for Extension of the 4th, 10-Year Inservice Testing Interval. (CAC: MF9819) | ACCEPTANCE REVIEW: FitzPatrick Proposed Alternative -Relief RR-001 for Extension of the 4th, 10-Year Inservice Testing Interval. (CAC: MF9819) | ||
Expires: Monday, August 14, 2017 12:00 AM By letter dated June 7, 2017 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. | Expires: Monday, August 14, 2017 12:00 AM By letter dated June 7, 2017 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML17158B295), Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon, the licensee), in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(z)(2), submitted a proposed alternative request to the 10-year interval contained within Inservice Test Interval, ISTA-3120(c)(2) for the fourth 10-year IST interval on the basis that the ASME Code requirements present undue hardship without a compensating increase in the level of quality or safety for the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant. The purpose of this letter is to provide the results of the U.S. | ||
ML17158B295), Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon, the licensee), in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(z)(2), submitted a proposed alternative request to the 10-year interval contained within Inservice Test Interval, ISTA-3120(c)(2) for the fourth 10-year IST interval on the basis that the ASME Code requirements present undue hardship without a compensating increase in the level of quality or safety for the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant. The purpose of this letter is to provide the results of the U.S. | |||
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs acceptance review of the above 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. | Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs acceptance review of the above 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 NRC staff has reviewed your submittal and concluded that it does provide technical information in sufficient detail to enable the staff to proceed with its detailed technical review and make an independent assessment regarding the acceptability of the proposed alternative 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. You will be advised of any further information needed to support the NRC staffs detailed technical review by separate correspondence. | The NRC staff has reviewed your submittal and concluded that it does provide technical information in sufficient detail to enable the staff to proceed with its detailed technical review and make an independent assessment regarding the acceptability of the proposed alternative 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. You will be advised of any further information needed to support the NRC staffs detailed technical review by separate correspondence. | ||
Revision as of 16:11, 4 February 2020
| ML17170A173 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 06/15/2017 |
| From: | Booma Venkataraman Plant Licensing Branch 1 |
| To: | Tom Loomis Exelon Generation Co |
| References | |
| MF9819 | |
| Download: ML17170A173 (3) | |
Text
NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: Venkataraman, Booma Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 6:41 PM To: Loomis, Thomas R:(GenCo-Nuc)
Cc: Williams, Christian D:(GenCo-Nuc); Danna, James
Subject:
ACCEPTANCE REVIEW: FitzPatrick Proposed Alternative -Relief RR-001 for Extension of the 4th, 10-Year Inservice Testing Interval. (CAC: MF9819)
Expires: Monday, August 14, 2017 12:00 AM By letter dated June 7, 2017 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML17158B295), Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon, the licensee), in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(z)(2), submitted a proposed alternative request to the 10-year interval contained within Inservice Test Interval, ISTA-3120(c)(2) for the fourth 10-year IST interval on the basis that the ASME Code requirements present undue hardship without a compensating increase in the level of quality or safety for the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant. The purpose of this letter is to provide the results of the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs acceptance review of the above 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 NRC staff has reviewed your submittal and concluded that it does provide technical information in sufficient detail to enable the staff to proceed with its detailed technical review and make an independent assessment regarding the acceptability of the proposed alternative 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. 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 the relief request will take approximately 120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> to complete. The NRC staff expects to complete the review of the licensing action by August 31, 2017 as requested in your June 7, 2017, letter. 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.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-2934.
Sincerely, Booma Booma Venkataraman, P.E.
Project Manager, NRR/DORL/LPL1 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Booma.Venkataraman@nrc.gov 301.415.2934 1
2 Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 3568 Mail Envelope Properties (Booma.Venkataraman@nrc.gov20170615184000)
Subject:
ACCEPTANCE REVIEW: FitzPatrick Proposed Alternative -Relief RR-001 for Extension of the 4th, 10-Year Inservice Testing Interval. (CAC: MF9819)
Sent Date: 6/15/2017 6:40:58 PM Received Date: 6/15/2017 6:40:00 PM From: Venkataraman, Booma Created By: Booma.Venkataraman@nrc.gov Recipients:
"Williams, Christian D:(GenCo-Nuc)" <Christian.Williams@exeloncorp.com>
Tracking Status: None "Danna, James" <James.Danna@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "Loomis, Thomas R:(GenCo-Nuc)" <thomas.loomis@exeloncorp.com>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 3240 6/15/2017 6:40:00 PM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: 8/14/2017 Recipients Received: