ML15120A081

Acceptance Review for TACs MF6094 & MF6095 - Limerick Units 1 and 2 - Submittal of Relief Request to Use Code Case OMN-18

ML15120A081
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	04/30/2015
From:	Richard Ennis Plant Licensing Branch 1
To:	Tom Loomis Exelon Generation Co
Ennis R, NRR/DORL/LPLI-2, 415-1420
References
TAC MF6094, TAC MF6095
Download: ML15120A081 (1)

Text

From: Ennis, Rick Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 9:36 AM To: Tom Loomis Cc: Glenn Stewart (glenn.stewart@exeloncorp.com); David Helker

Subject:

Acceptance Review for TACs MF6094 & MF6095 - Limerick Units 1 and 2 -

Submittal of Relief Request to Use Code Case OMN-18

Tom, By letter dated April 13, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15104A531), Exelon Generation Company, LLC submitted a relief request for Limerick Generating Station (LGS), Units 1 and 2.

The proposed relief request concerns the use American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (Code) Case OMN-18, Alternate Testing Requirements for Pumps Tested Quarterly Within +/-20% of Design Flow.

The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the 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.

Pursuant to Sections 50.55a(z)(1) and 50.55a(z)(2) 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 staff to proceed with its detailed technical review and make an independent assessment regarding the acceptability of the proposed relief 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. You will be advised of any further information needed to support the NRC staffs detailed technical review by separate correspondence.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-1420.

Richard B. Ennis, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch I-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation