ML16076A005

E-mail from R.Guzman to W.Craft Acceptance Review Determination - Alternative Request RR-04-22 (MF7369)

ML16076A005
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	03/16/2016
From:	Richard Guzman Plant Licensing Branch 1
To:	Craft W Dominion Nuclear Connecticut
Guzman R
References
TAC MF7369
Download: ML16076A005 (1)

Text

From: Guzman, Richard Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 7:08 AM To: 'wanda.d.craft@dom.com' Cc: RidsNRRLIC109 Resource

Subject:

Acceptance Review Determination - Millstone Power Station Unit 2 -

Alternative Request RR-04-22 (MF7369)

Wanda, The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the NRC staffs acceptance review of the subject proposed alternative request.

By letter dated February 18, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16057A179), Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (DNC) requested an alternative (RR-04-22) to the requirement of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code, Section Xl, Paragraph IWB-2412, Inspection Program B, for Millstone Power Station Unit 2 which requires examination of identified reactor vessel pressure retaining welds (Examination Category B-A and B-D) once each 10-year interval. The proposed alternative would extend the current examination frequency from 10 years to 20 years.

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 proposed alternative request 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 DNCs proposed alternative request 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 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.

Thanks,

~~~~~~~~~

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