ML14288A447
| ML14288A447 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 11/04/2014 |
| From: | Shawn Williams Plant Licensing Branch II |
| To: | Pierce C Southern Nuclear Operating Co |
| Williams S | |
| References | |
| TAC MF4990 | |
| Download: ML14288A447 (3) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 November 4, 2014 Mr. C. R. Pierce Regulatory Affairs Director Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
P. 0. Box 1295 I Bin - 038 Birmingham, AL 35201-1295
SUBJECT:
JOSEPH M.' FARLEY, UNIT 2- ACCEPTANCE REVIEW REGARDING PROPOSED INSERVICE INSPECTION ALTERNATIVE (FNP-ISI-ALT-17, VERSION 1) (TAC NO. MF4990)
Dear Mr. Pierce:
By letter dated October 6, 2014 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML14280A260), the Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., submitted a request for approval to use an alternative to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code Case N-729-1, Inspection Item B4.40 for Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) Closure Head nozzle and partial penetration welds of Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking (PWSCC)-resistant materials to be reexamined once every 20-years for Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP) Unit 2 in lieu of the 10-year examination requirement outlined in ASME Code Case N-729:..1. The request, if approved, would be applicable to the fourth and fifth 10-year inservice inspection interval.
The licensee submitted the request pursuant to Section 50.55a(a)(3)(i) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which requires the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed alternative would provide an acceptable level of quality and safety.
The purpose of this correspondence is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's 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 request 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 continue 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 staff's ability to complete the detailed technical review are identified in "requests for additional information*~ despite completion of an adequate acceptance review. You will be advised of any further information needed to support the NRC staff's detailed technical review by separate ,
correspondence.
C. R. Pierce If you have any questions, please contact me on (301) 415-1009.
Sincerely, Shawn Williams, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 11-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos.: 50-364 cc: Distribution via Listserv
ML14288A447 OFFICE NRR/LPLII-1/PM NRR/LPLII-1/LA NRR/LPLII-1/BC NRR/LPLII-1/PM NAME SWilliams SFigueroa RPascarelli SWilliams DATE 10/30/14 10/28/14 11/03/14 11/04/14