ML16224A143

Acceptance Review Regarding Reactor Vessel Threads in Flange Examination

ML16224A143
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle, Farley
Issue date:	08/23/2016
From:	Martin R Plant Licensing Branch II
To:	Pierce C Southern Nuclear Operating Co
Martin R, NRR/DORL/LPLII-1, 415-1493
References
CAC MF8061, CAC MF8062, CAC MF8070
Download: ML16224A143 (2)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 August 23, 2016 Mr. Charles R. Pierce Regulatory Affairs Director Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.

P.O. Box 1295 I Bin 038 Birmingham, AL 35201-1295

SUBJECT:

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2, AND JOSEPH M.

FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 1 -ACCEPTANCE REVIEW REGARDING REACTOR VESSEL THREADS IN FLANGE EXAMINATION (CAC NOS. MF8061, MF8062, AND MF8070)

Dear Mr. Pierce:

By letters dated June 28, 2016, and June 30, 2016 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession Nos. ML16180A046 and ML16182A475, respectively),

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) proposed alternatives for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, and Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit 1.

Section 50.55a(z)(1) of Title 1O of the Code of Federal Regulations requires the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed alternative would provide an acceptable level of quality and safety. SNC proposes to eliminate the reactor pressure vessel threads in flange examination requirement for the remainder of the inservice inspection intervals. By letter dated July 26, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16204A042), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff requested additional information to enable the continuation of its review. SNC responded by letter dated August 4, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16221A066).

The purpose of this letter is to provide the results of the NRC staff's acceptance review of SNC's proposal. The acceptance review was performed to determine if there is sufficient technical information in scope and depth to allow the NRC staff to continue 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 SNC's proposal, as revised, and concludes that it provides technical information in sufficient detail to enable the NRC staff to continue its detailed technical review and make an independent assessment regarding the acceptability of the proposed requests 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 staff's ability to complete the detailed technical review are identified in requests for additional

C. Pierce information, despite completion of an adequate acceptance review. You will be advised of any further information needed to support the NRC staff's detailed technical review by separate correspondence.

Sincerely, qt>6 /1'lorf: ~

l- Bob Martin, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 11-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-424, 50-425, and 50-348

Enclosure:

Supplemental Information Needed cc w/enclosure: Distribution via Listserv

ML16224A143 OFFICE DORL/LPL2-1/PM DORL/LPL2-1/LA DE/EVIB/BC NAME BMartin LRonewicz JMcHale DATE 8/23/16 8/15/16 8/10/16 OFFICE DORL/LPL2-1/PM DORL/LPL2-1 /BC DORL/LPL2-1/BC NAME SWilliams MMarkley BMartin DATE 08/23/16 08/23/16 08/23/16