ML13093A484

Acceptance Review of Proposed Alternative 2-TYP-3-RVSE-2

ML13093A484
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	04/03/2013
From:	Peter Bamford Plant Licensing Branch 1
To:	Lashley P FirstEnergy Corp
Bamford P
Shared Package
ml13094a309	List: ML13093A484
References
Download: ML13093A484 (1)

Text

From: Bamford, Peter To: "phlashley@firstenergycorp.com" Cc: talentz@firstenergycorp.com

Subject:

Acceptance Review of Proposed Alternative 2-TYP-3-RVSE-2 Date: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 4:18:00 PM By letter dated March 11, 2013 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML13071A097), FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company submitted, for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) review and approval, proposed alternative request number 2-TYP-3-RVSE-2, 10 CFR 50.55a Alternative Examination Request for Reactor Vessel Safe-End Welds. The request proposed an alternative to certain requirements of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code for Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS), Unit No. 2. The request is associated with volumetric examinations of certain reactor vessel nozzle welds.

Specifically, pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Paragraph 50.55a(g)(5)(iii), the licensee requested relief from the depth-sizing uncertainty qualification requirement for ultrasonic examinations conducted from the inside diameter of pipes, i.e.,

root mean square error not greater than 0.125 inches, contained in ASME Code Cases N-695, Qualification Requirements for Dissimilar Metal Piping Welds,Section XI, Division 1, and N-696, Qualification Requirements for Appendix VIII Piping Examinations Conducted From the Inside Surface,Section XI, Division 1, due to impracticality.

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