ML121180223

Acceptance Review E-mail, Relief Request ANO2-ISI-012, from Volumetric and Surface Exam Requirements for Pressure Retaining Welds in Pressure Vessels, Third 10-Year Inservice Inspection Interval

ML121180223
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	04/27/2012
From:	Kalyanam N Plant Licensing Branch IV
To:	Clark R Entergy Operations
Kalyanam N, NRR/DORL/LPL4, 415-1480
References
TAC ME8274
Download: ML121180223 (2)

Text

From: Kalyanam, Kaly Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 10:58 AM To: CLARK, ROBERT W Cc: Lent, Susan; Burkhardt, Janet

Subject:

Acceptance Review Result fro ANO2-ISI-012 (TAC No. ME8274)

Subject:

Acceptance of Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit 2 Requests for Relief from American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)Section XI Volumetric and Surface Examination Requirements - Third 10-Year Interval - ANO2-ISI-012 (TAC No. ME8274)

Bob/Dave:

By letter dated March 26, 2012, (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML12086A293), Entergy Operations Inc. (Entergy, the licensee) submitted a code alternative relief request for the Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit 2 (ANO-2). The request, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i), was for the NRC approval of the relief from the requirements of the ASME, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI pertaining to volumetric and surface examinations at Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2), at locations where the required coverage cannot be obtained due to interference or geometry. These reliefs were for the third 10-year Inservice Inspection (ISI) interval.

The purpose of this email is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's acceptance review of this relief request. The acceptance review was performed 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 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 Request for Relief, ANO2-ISI-013, 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 relief 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 detailed technical review, there may be instances in which issues that impact the NRC staffs ability to complete the detailed technical review are identified despite completion of an adequate acceptance review. 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 at (301) 415-1480.

N (Kaly) Kalyanam Project Manager - ANO-2 US NRC/NRR/DORL/LPL4 kaly.kalyanam@nrc.gov 301-415-1480 DOCKET No. 50-368