ML14310A853

E-mail from J. Whited to P. Lashley Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1 Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Relief Request 1TYP-4-RV-04

ML14310A853
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	11/06/2014
From:	Jeffrey Whited Plant Licensing Branch 1
To:	Lashley P FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co
Jeffery Whited, NRR/DORL 415-4090
References
TAC MF5049
Download: ML14310A853 (1)

Text

Whited, Jeffrey From: Whited, Jeffrey Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 6:47 PM To: phlashley@firstenergycorp.com

Subject:

BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION UNIT 1 ACCEPTANCE OF REQUESTED LICENSING ACTION RE: RELIEF REQUEST 1TYP-4-RV-04 (TAC NO. MF5049)

SUBJECT:

BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION UNIT 1 ACCEPTANCE OF REQUESTED LICENSING ACTION RE: RELIEF REQUEST 1TYP-4-RV-04 (TAC NO. MF5049)

Dear Mr. Lashley,

By letter dated October 17, 2014, (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML14290A140) FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (the licensee), submitted a relief request for the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1 (BVPS-1). Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a (a)(3)(i), the licensee requested an alternative to performing the required volumetric and surface examinations for certain BVPS-1 Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) head components, identified in the submittal, at the frequency prescribed in American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code),Section XI, Code Case N-729-1, Alternative Examination Requirements for PWR [Pressurized Water Reactor] Reactor Vessel Upper Heads with Nozzles Having Pressure-Retaining Partial-Penetration Welds,Section XI, Division 1. Specifically, the licensee requested to extend the frequency of the volumetric and surface examinations specified in Table 1, Item 84.40 of ASME Code Case N-729-1 for approximately 2 years beyond the one inspection interval (nominally 10 calendar years) from installation of the BVPS-1 replacement RPV head. This request would extend the volumetric/surface examination to the 25th refueling outage that is scheduled to commence in April 2018.

Pursuant to Sections 50.55a(a)(3)(i) and 50.55a(a)(3)(ii) of Title 10 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 NRC staff has reviewed your application 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 proposed amendment 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.

JeffreyWhited

ProjectManagerBeaverValley

andSusquehanna

PlantLicensingBranchI2

DivisionofOperatingReactorLicensing

OfficeofNuclearReactorRegulation

U.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommission

(301)4154090

jeffrey.whited@nrc.gov

1