ML16111B053
| 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.