ML16111B053: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| number = ML16111B053 | | number = ML16111B053 | ||
| issue date = 04/18/2016 | | issue date = 04/18/2016 | ||
| title = Acceptance for Review of Optimized | | title = Acceptance for Review of Optimized ZIRLO - Farly and Vogtle, Units 1 and 2 | ||
| author name = Martin R | | author name = Martin R | ||
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR/DORL/LPLII-1 | | author affiliation = NRC/NRR/DORL/LPLII-1 | ||
| addressee name = Joyce R | | addressee name = Joyce R, Mcelroy K | ||
| addressee affiliation = Southern Nuclear Operating Co, Inc | | addressee affiliation = Southern Nuclear Operating Co, Inc | ||
| docket = 05000348, 05000364, 05000424, 05000425 | | docket = 05000348, 05000364, 05000424, 05000425 | ||
| license number = NPF-002, NPF-008, NPF-068, NPF-081 | | license number = NPF-002, NPF-008, NPF-068, NPF-081 | ||
| contact person = Martin R | | contact person = Martin R | ||
| document type = E-Mail | | document type = E-Mail | ||
| page count = 1 | | page count = 1 | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:}} | {{#Wiki_filter:From: | ||
Martin, Robert To: | |||
McElroy, G. Ken; Joyce, Ryan M. (RMJOYCE@southernco.com) | |||
Cc: | |||
Williams, Shawn | |||
==Subject:== | |||
Acceptance for review of Optimized ZIRLO - Farly and Vogtle, Units 1 and 2 Date: | |||
Monday, April 18, 2016 12:21:00 PM By application dated March 16, 2016, the Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. | |||
proposes to revise Technical Specifications (TS) for the Farley and Vogtle Unit 1 and 2 plants to allow the use of Optimized ZIRLO' as an approved fuel rod cladding. | |||
The purpose of this correspondence 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 continue its technical review. The acceptance review is also intended to identify whether the request 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 TSs ) 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 request and concludes that it does provide technical information in sufficient detail to enable the NRC staff to continue its 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 acceptance review as compared to the technical review, there may be instances in which issues that impact the NRC staffs ability to complete the technical review are identified in requests for additional information despite completion of an adequate acceptance review. You will be advised of any further information needed to support the NRC staffs technical review by separate correspondence. | |||
From: | |||
Martin, Robert To: | |||
McElroy, G. Ken; Joyce, Ryan M. (RMJOYCE@southernco.com) | |||
Cc: | |||
Williams, Shawn | |||
==Subject:== | |||
Acceptance for review of Optimized ZIRLO - Farly and Vogtle, Units 1 and 2 Date: | |||
Monday, April 18, 2016 12:21:00 PM By application dated March 16, 2016, the Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. | |||
proposes to revise Technical Specifications (TS) for the Farley and Vogtle Unit 1 and 2 plants to allow the use of Optimized ZIRLO' as an approved fuel rod cladding. | |||
The purpose of this correspondence 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 continue its technical review. The acceptance review is also intended to identify whether the request 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 TSs ) 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 request and concludes that it does provide technical information in sufficient detail to enable the NRC staff to continue its 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 acceptance review as compared to the technical review, there may be instances in which issues that impact the NRC staffs ability to complete the technical review are identified in requests for additional information despite completion of an adequate acceptance review. You will be advised of any further information needed to support the NRC staffs technical review by separate correspondence.}} | |||
Latest revision as of 00:58, 10 January 2025
| ML16111B053 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle, Farley  |
| Issue date: | 04/18/2016 |
| From: | Martin R Plant Licensing Branch II |
| To: | Joyce R, Mcelroy K Southern Nuclear Operating Co |
| Martin R | |
| References | |
| Download: ML16111B053 (1) | |
Text
From:
Martin, Robert To:
McElroy, G. Ken; Joyce, Ryan M. (RMJOYCE@southernco.com)
Cc:
Williams, Shawn
Subject:
Acceptance for review of Optimized ZIRLO - Farly and Vogtle, Units 1 and 2 Date:
Monday, April 18, 2016 12:21:00 PM By application dated March 16, 2016, the Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
proposes to revise Technical Specifications (TS) for the Farley and Vogtle Unit 1 and 2 plants to allow the use of Optimized ZIRLO' as an approved fuel rod cladding.
The purpose of this correspondence 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 continue its technical review. The acceptance review is also intended to identify whether the request 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 TSs ) 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 request and concludes that it does provide technical information in sufficient detail to enable the NRC staff to continue its 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 acceptance review as compared to the technical review, there may be instances in which issues that impact the NRC staffs ability to complete the technical review are identified in requests for additional information despite completion of an adequate acceptance review. You will be advised of any further information needed to support the NRC staffs technical review by separate correspondence.
From:
Martin, Robert To:
McElroy, G. Ken; Joyce, Ryan M. (RMJOYCE@southernco.com)
Cc:
Williams, Shawn
Subject:
Acceptance for review of Optimized ZIRLO - Farly and Vogtle, Units 1 and 2 Date:
Monday, April 18, 2016 12:21:00 PM By application dated March 16, 2016, the Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
proposes to revise Technical Specifications (TS) for the Farley and Vogtle Unit 1 and 2 plants to allow the use of Optimized ZIRLO' as an approved fuel rod cladding.
The purpose of this correspondence 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 continue its technical review. The acceptance review is also intended to identify whether the request 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 TSs ) 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 request and concludes that it does provide technical information in sufficient detail to enable the NRC staff to continue its 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 acceptance review as compared to the technical review, there may be instances in which issues that impact the NRC staffs ability to complete the technical review are identified in requests for additional information despite completion of an adequate acceptance review. You will be advised of any further information needed to support the NRC staffs technical review by separate correspondence.