ML16223A939

Acceptance Review Determination - 2016/08/10 E-mail from R.Guzman to W.Craft Exemption Request for Use of Axiom Cladding Material in Lead Test Assemblies (MF8120)

ML16223A939
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	08/10/2016
From:	Richard Guzman Plant Licensing Branch 1
To:	Craft W Dominion Nuclear Connecticut
Guzman R
References
TAC MF8120
Download: ML16223A939 (1)

Text

From: Guzman, Richard Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 10:14 AM To: 'wanda.d.craft@dom.com' Cc: RidsNRRLIC109 Resource

Subject:

Acceptance Review Determination - Millstone Unit 3 - Exemption Request for Use of Axiom Cladding Material in Lead Test Assemblies (MF8120)

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

By letter dated June 30, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16189A104), Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (DNC) submitted a letter requesting an exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 for Millstone Power Station, Unit 3 (MPS3). Specifically, DNC requested an exemption from the associated 10 CFR 50.46 requirements to allow up to eight lead test assemblies containing fuel rods fabricated with AXIOM cladding which is outside the metallurgical content of cladding types approved for use at MPS3 (i.e., Zirc-4, ZIRLO, or Optimized ZIRLOTM).

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 DNCs application 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. PM, Division Operator Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office: O8E-10 l Phone: (301) 415-1030 Richard.Guzman@nrc.gov