ML12311A211

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search

E-mail, Acceptance Review End of Interval Relief Request RR-12-01, Pressurizer Relief Nozzel Weld Exams
ML12311A211
Person / Time
Site: Three Mile Island Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 11/06/2012
From: Peter Bamford
Plant Licensing Branch 1
To: Tom Loomis
Exelon Corp
Bamford P
References
TAC ME9788
Download: ML12311A211 (1)


Text

From: Bamford, Peter To: "thomas.loomis@exeloncorp.com" Cc: "david.helker@exeloncorp.com"

Subject:

TMI-1 End of Interval Relief Request RR-12-01, Pressurizer Relief Nozzle Weld Exams (TAC No. ME9788)

Date: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 10:59:00 AM By letter dated October 5, 2012 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML12283A252), Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon, the licensee) submitted a relief request for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval. In the relief request, Exelon identifies the limited examination of three pressurizer relief nozzle welds at Three Mile Island Nuclear Station (TMI-1) for the third inservice inspection interval, which ended on April 19, 2012. According to the licensee, the coverage for each of the welds in question was approximately 40%, as compared to a specification of 90%, in accordance with ASME Code Case N-460, Alternative Examination Requirements for Class 1 and Class 2 Welds,Section XI, Division 1.

The purpose of this email is to provide the results of the NRC staff's acceptance review of the subject 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.

The NRC staff has reviewed your submittal and concluded that the request does provide technical information in sufficient detail to enable the NRC staff to continue with its detailed 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 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, you will be advised by separate correspondence.

Peter Bamford NRR/DORL/LPL 1-2 Beaver Valley & TMI-1 Project Manager 301-415-2833