ML13290A564

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
NRR E-mail Capture - Acceptance Review for Proposed Alternative to Utilize Code Case N-649, Alternative Requirements for IWE-5240 Visual Examination Section XI, Division 1
ML13290A564
Person / Time
Site: Dresden, Peach Bottom, Oyster Creek, Byron, Limerick, Clinton, Quad Cities, LaSalle
Issue date: 10/09/2013
From: Joel Wiebe
Plant Licensing Branch III
To: Tom Loomis
Exelon Corp
References
Download: ML13290A564 (2)


Text

NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 4:45 PM To: Tom Loomis

Subject:

Acceptance Review for Proposed Alternative to Utilize Code Case N-649, "Alternative Requirements for IWE-5240 Visual Examination Section XI, Division 1" By letter dated September 25, 2013 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)

Accession No. ML13270A060), Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon), submitted a request to utilize a proposed alternative to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, "Rules for lnservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components," associated with the Containment In service Inspection programs. Specifically, this proposed alternative concerns the use of Code Case N-649, "Alternative Requirements for IWE-5240 Visual Examination Section XI, Division 1." Exelon has requested this proposed alternative for Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, Clinton Power Station, Unit 1; Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3; LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, and Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station (QCNPS), Units 1 and 2. The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs acceptance review of this 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 request and concluded that it does provide technical information in sufficient detail to enable the NRC staff to complete its detailed technical review and make an independent assessment regarding the acceptability of the 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.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-6606.

Joel S. Wiebe, Sr. Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch III-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 1

Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 871 Mail Envelope Properties (Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov20131009164500)

Subject:

Acceptance Review for Proposed Alternative to Utilize Code Case N-649, "Alternative Requirements for IWE-5240 Visual Examination Section XI, Division 1" Sent Date: 10/9/2013 4:45:16 PM Received Date: 10/9/2013 4:45:00 PM From: Wiebe, Joel Created By: Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov Recipients:

"Tom Loomis" <thomas.loomis@exeloncorp.com>

Tracking Status: None Post Office:

Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 2525 10/9/2013 4:45:00 PM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received: