ML16111B053

Acceptance for Review of Optimized Zirlo - Farly and Vogtle, Units 1 and 2

ML16111B053
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle, Farley
Issue date:	04/18/2016
From:	Martin R E Plant Licensing Branch II
To:	Joyce R M, McElroy K G Southern Nuclear Operating Co
Martin R E
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 ZIRLOŽ as an approved fuel rod cladding.

The purpose of this correspondence is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) staff's 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 staff's 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 staff's 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 ZIRLOŽ as an approved fuel rod cladding.

The purpose of this correspondence is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) staff's 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 staff's 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 staff's technical review by separate

correspondence.