ML15258A219

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search

E-mail Capture - Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Acceptance Review - PRR-50 and PRR-51 (Proposed Alternative to Nozzle-to-Weld Weld Examination (Code Case N-702) MF6362 and RPV Shell Circumferential Weld Examination (BWRVIP-05) MF6361
ML15258A219
Person / Time
Site: Pilgrim
Issue date: 09/14/2015
From: Richard Guzman
Plant Licensing Branch 1
To: Mike Williams
Entergy Nuclear Operations
Guzman R
References
TAC MF6361, TAC MF6362
Download: ML15258A219 (1)


Text

From: Guzman, Richard Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 1:32 PM To: 'Williams, Murray'

Subject:

Acceptance Review Determination - PRR-50 and PRR-51 (Proposed Alternative to Nozzle-to-Weld Weld Examination (Code Case N-702) MF6362 and RPV Shell Circumferential Weld Examination (BWRVIP-05) MF6361

Murray, The subject acceptance reviews were completed on July 10, 2015; however, I failed to send you an e-mail for confirmation. The following message confirms the NRC staffs acceptance determination:

The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the NRC staffs acceptance review of the subject licensing action requests.

By letter dated June 4, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15166A037), Entergy Nuclear Operation, Inc. (ENO) submitted PRR-50 and PRR-51pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(z)1) for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station requesting an alternative to specific portions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, on the basis that the proposed alternatives provide an acceptable level of quality and safety.

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 ENOs requests for relief and concludes 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. You will be advised of any further information needed to support the NRC staffs detailed technical review by separate correspondence.

Thanks, Rich Guzman Sr. Project Manager NRR/DORL USNRC 301-415-1030