ML12331A086

From kanterella
Revision as of 22:03, 27 July 2018 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 - E-mail Acceptance Review Fifth Interval IST Relief VR-02, ASME OM Code Test Frequencies (TAC No. MF0048)
ML12331A086
Person / Time
Site: Three Mile Island Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 11/26/2012
From: Bamford P J
Plant Licensing Branch 1
To: David Helker, Tom Loomis
Exelon Generation Co
Bamford P J, NRR/LPL1-2, 301-415-2833
Shared Package
ML12331A114 List:
References
TAC MF0048
Download: ML12331A086 (1)


Text

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

Subject:

TMI-1 Fifth Interval IST Relief Request VR-02, ASME OM Code Test Frequencies (TAC No. MF0048)

Date:Monday, November 26, 2012 10:50:00 AMBy letter dated November 7, 2012 (Agencywide Documents Access and ManagementSystem Accession No. ML12313A344), Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon, the licensee) submitted three relief requests for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval (PR-01, PR-02, and VR-02).

These relief requests apply to the Fifth InserviceTesting Interval at Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1).

This acceptancereview applies only to request VR-02, "Proposed Alternative Concerning ASME OM Code Test Frequencies In Accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(ii)."

In general, and with somecaveats, VR-02 requests that a 25% grace period be allowed for OM Code elapsed interval testing, similar to that allowed by the TMI-1 Technical Specification 1.25.

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