ML15044A088
| ML15044A088 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 02/24/2015 |
| From: | Shawn Williams Plant Licensing Branch II |
| To: | Gatlin T South Carolina Electric & Gas Co |
| Williams S | |
| References | |
| TAC MF5612 | |
| Download: ML15044A088 (3) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 February 24, 2015 Mr. Thomas D. Gatlin Vice President, Nuclear Operations South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Post Office Box 88, Mail Code 800
- Jenkinsville, SC 29065 *
SUBJECT:
VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1 -ACCEPTANCE REVIEW CONCERNING ALTERNAT.IVE REQUEST (TAC NO. MF5612)
Dear Mr. Gatlin:
By letter dated January 20, 2015, the South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G, the licensee) submitted a alternative request for Virg.il C. Summer, Unit 1 (VCSNS) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML15022A655). The proposed alternative requests to use a root mean square error criterion for sizing flaws that is great~r than that allowed by American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code for Reactor Pressure Vessel nozzles to safe-end cold leg welds.
Pursuant to Sections 50.55a(z)(1) of Title 1O of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), the licensee requested to use the proposed alternative on the basis it would provide an acceptable level of quality and safety.
The purpose of this letter is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's acceptance review of this relief. 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 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 a'nd 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 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.
T. D. Gatlin If yoi.J 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 No. 50-395 cc: Distribution via Listserv
~\
ML15044A088 OFFICE LPLll-1/PM LPLll-1/LA LPLll-1/BC LPLll-1/PM NAME SWilliams SFigueroa RPascarelli SWilliams DATE 02/23/15 02/23/15 02/24/15 02/24/15