ML15089A009

Volumetric Examination Interval Extension for Reactor Vessel Head Acceptance Review Results (Tac Nos. MF5829 & MF5830)

ML15089A009
Person / Time
Site:	Calvert Cliffs
Issue date:	03/27/2015
From:	Nadiyah Morgan Plant Licensing Branch 1
To:	Furio P, Tom Loomis, Enrique Villar Exelon Corp
Morgan N
References
TAC MF5829, TAC MF5830
Download: ML15089A009 (1)

Text

From: Morgan, Nadiyah Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 5:40 PM To: Loomis, Thomas R:(GenCo-Nuc) (thomas.loomis@exeloncorp.com)

Cc: Furio, Patricia S:(CCNPP) (patricia.furio@exeloncorp.com); Villar, Enrique:(GenCo-Nuc) (Enrique.Villar@exeloncorp.com)

Subject:

CALVERT CLIFFS 1 & 2 - Volumetric Examination Interval Extension for Reactor Vessel Head Acceptance Review Results (MF5829/30)

Tom, By letter dated January 8, 2015 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML15009A035), Exelon Generation Company, LLC submitted a relief request for authorization of a proposed alternative to exam frequency requirements of Item B4.40 of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Case N-729-1 for performing volumetric and/or surface exams of the Reactor Vessel Closure Head penetrations at Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 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 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.

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 change 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.

Thanks, Dee Nadiyah S. Morgan Calvert Cliffs and Pilgrim Project Manager, NRR US Nuclear Regulatory Commission O-8F4 (301) 415-1016 Nadiyah.Morgan@NRC.GOV