ML091970467

Request for Additional Information Regarding Requests for Relief

ML091970467
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	07/23/2009
From:	Martin R Plant Licensing Branch II
To:	Ajluni M Southern Nuclear Operating Co
Martin R, NRR/DORL, 415-1493
References
TAC ME1121
Download: ML091970467 (3)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 July 23, 2009 Mr. Mark J. Ajluni Manager, Nuclear Licensing Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc 40 Inverness Center Parkway Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, AL 35201 SUB~IECT: FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2, REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING REQUESTS FOR RELIEF (TAC NO. ME1121)

Dear Mr. Ajluni:

By letter to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) dated April 22, 2009, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), submitted request for relief FNP-ISI-ALT-07, Version 1.0, which involved requesting relief from the requirements of American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code),Section XI, at the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit 2. Specifically, SNC proposed examining the reactor pressure vessel shell-to-f1ange weld in accordance with the ASME Code,Section XI, Appendix VIII, Supplements 4 and 6, requirements in lieu of the Code required examinations conducted in accordance with ASME Code,Section V, Article 4. The NRC staff has determined that the following information is needed in order to complete its review of FNP-ISI-ALT-07 Version 1.0.

1. Please provide a discussion of the technical basis for this change at the level of detail of SNC's similar relief request, ISI-GEN-ALT-06-01, dated June 29,2006. It is not clear whether the basis for the current proposed alternative, FNP-ISI-ALT-07, Version 1.0, is the same as that of SNC's June 29, 2006, submittal, or whether it is different.

2. Please provide a figure of the reactor pressure vessel shell-to-flange weld APR1-1100-1.

3. Identify any limitations expected with the remote angle beam examination of this weld (i.e., tapers, access, etc.)

4. Provide the estimated volumetric coverage that is expected to be obtained with the proposed alternative verses the volumetric coverage that would be obtained under the current Code req uirements.

5. In the section "Applicable Code Requirements" on page E1-1 of the submittal, the last sentence of the paragraph states, "Section T-441 of the 2001 Edition of Section V through the 2003 Addenda defines the UT [ultrasonic test] scanning criteria for the examination of the reactor vessel-to-flange weld." Please explain the relevance of this reference to the proposed alternative.

M. Ajluni -2 Please provide a response within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter.

Sincerely,

() /'/4 ~ fl'1 ~0 IIRob~rtin, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 11-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364 cc

Distribution via ListServ

ML091970467 NRR-028 OFFICE NRRlLPL2-1/PM NRRlLPL2-1/LA NRRlLPL2-1/(A}BC NAME RMartin: SRohrer UShoop DATE 07/22/09 07/20/09 07/23/09