ML16137A003
| ML16137A003 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 05/16/2016 |
| From: | Richard Guzman Plant Licensing Branch 1 |
| To: | Craft W Dominion Nuclear Connecticut |
| Guzman R | |
| References | |
| CAC MF7595, CAC MF7596 | |
| Download: ML16137A003 (1) | |
Text
From:
Guzman, Richard Sent:
Monday, May 16, 2016 6:08 AM To:
'wanda.d.craft@dom.com' Cc:
RidsNRRLIC109 Resource
Subject:
Acceptance Review Determination - Millstone Power Station Unit 2 and 3-Relief Requests RR-04-23 and IR-3-28 (MF7595 and MF7596)
- Wanda, The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the NRC staffs acceptance review of the subject proposed relief requests.
By letter dated April 11, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16106A105), Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (DNC, the licensee) requested NRC approval of Alternative Request RR-04-23 for Millstone Power Station, Unit 2 and Alternative Request IR-3-28 for Millstone Power Station Unit 3. Specifically, ASME Code, Section Ill requires that ASME Class 2 ferritic circumferential pipe weld joints be examined using radiographic examination techniques to satisfy nondestructive examination requirements. DNC requests approval to use encoded Phased Array Ultrasonic Examination Techniques as an alternative to radiographic examination.
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 requests 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