ML13282A308

Acceptance Review Email, Request for Alternative W3-ISI-023, ASME Code Case N-770-1 Successive Examinations, Third 10-Year Inservice Inspection Interval

ML13282A308
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	10/09/2013
From:	Kalyanam N Plant Licensing Branch IV
To:	Pellegrin B Entergy Operations
Kalyanam N
References
TAC MF2815, W3-ISI-023
Download: ML13282A308 (2)

Text

From: Kalyanam, Kaly To: PELLEGRIN, BRYAN J (BPELLEG@entergy.com)

Cc: Burkhardt, Janet

Subject:

Acceptance Review Result for Waterford 3 Relief Request W3-ISI-023 (TAC No. MF2815)

Date: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 9:17:56 AM The SUNSI information as follows:

Plant: Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 Docket No.: 50/382

Subject:

Acceptance Review Report on Request for Relief No. W3-ISI-023 TAC No.: MF2815 SUNSI Review Done: Yes.

Publicly Available, Normal Release, Non-sensitive, From: N. Kalyanam To: Bryan Pellegrin

Subject:

Acceptance Review Result for Waterford 3 Relief Request W3-ISI-023 (TAC No. MF2815)

Bryan:

By letter dated September 26, 2013, (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML13270A041), Entergy Operations Inc. (Entergy, the licensee) submitted an alternative to the requirements of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code Case N-770-1, as conditioned by 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(F) pertaining to volumetric examination of the dissimilar metal welds associated with the suction and discharge piping of the Reactor Coolant Pumps (RCP) and the Safety Injection (SI) nozzle to safe-ends at Waterford Steam Electric Station Unit 3.

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 relief request stated that compliance with the requirements of Code Case N-770-1 as required by

10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(F) would result in a hardship without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safetyrequested authorization to perform the requested alternative to the Code case requirement pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(ii).

The NRC staff has reviewed your Request for Relief, W3-ISI-023, 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 - Waterford 3 US NRC/NRR/DORL/LPL4 Ref.: Kyle J. Hanley/EVIB