ML113000147
| ML113000147 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 10/27/2011 |
| From: | Bhalchandra Vaidya Plant Licensing Branch 1 |
| To: | Joseph Pechacek, Eugene Dorman FitzPatrick |
| vaidya B, NRR/Dorl/lpl1-1, 415-3308 | |
| References | |
| TAC ME7243 | |
| Download: ML113000147 (1) | |
Text
From:
Vaidya, Bhalchandra Sent:
Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:27 AM To:
'Dorman, Eugene'; 'Pechacek, Joseph' Cc:
Salgado, Nancy; Lingam, Siva; Boyle, Patrick; Sydnor, Christopher; Fairbanks, Carolyn; Gonzalez, Hipolito
Subject:
ME7243 - ACCEPTANCE OF REQUESTED LICENSING ACTION RE: Relief Request RR-8
SUBJECT:
James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAFNPP) - ACCEPTANCE OF REQUESTED LICENSING ACTION RE: Proposed Relief Request (RR-8), Alternative Examination Requirements for Nozzle-to-Vessel Shell Welds and Nozzle Inner Radius Sections Using American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code Case N-702 and BWRVIP-108NP. (TAC NO. ME7243)
By letter dated October 3, 2011, Energy Nuclear Operations, Inc., the licensee, submitted the Relief Request RR-8 for Proposed Alternative Examination Requirements for Nozzle-to-Vessel Shell Welds and Nozzle Inner Radius Sections Using American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code Case N-702 and BWRVIP-108NP.
The purpose of this communication is to provide the results of the NRC staffs acceptance review of this relief request. The acceptance review was performed by the staff of NRC to determine if there is sufficient 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 the application has any readily apparent information insufficiencies in its characterization of the regulatory requirements or the licensing basis of the plant.
Pursuant to Sections 50.55a(a)(3)(i) and 50.55a(a)(3)(ii) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), the applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed alternatives would provide an acceptable level of quality and safety, or that compliance with the specified requirements of Section 50.55a would result in hardship or unusual difficulty without a compensating increase in the level of quality or safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed your application and concluded that it does provide technical information in sufficient detail to enable the staff to proceed with its detailed technical review and make an independent assessment regarding the acceptability of the proposed amendment in terms of regulatory requirements and the protection of public health and safety and the environment. If additional information is needed for the staff to complete its technical review, you will be advised by separate correspondence.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Bhalchandra K. Vaidya Licensing Project Manager NRC/NRR/DORL/LPL1-1 (301)-415-3308 (O) bhalchandra.vaidya@nrc.gov