ML16270A046

Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Relief Request for Proposed Alternative for the Implementation of BWRVIP-05

ML16270A046
Person / Time
Site:	FitzPatrick
Issue date:	10/03/2016
From:	Render D Plant Licensing Branch 1
To:	Brian Sullivan Entergy Nuclear
RENDER D, DORL/LPL1-1, 415-3629
References
CAC MF8361
Download: ML16270A046 (3)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 October 3, 2016 Mr. Brian Sullivan Site Vice President Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant P.O. Box 110 Lycoming, NY 13093

SUBJECT:

JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT -ACCEPTANCE OF REQUESTED LICENSING ACTION RE: RELIEF REQUEST FOR PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF BWRVIP-05 (CAC NO.

MF8361)

Dear Mr. Sullivan:

By application dated September 8, 2016 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML16252A473), Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., submitted a relief request for James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant. The proposed relief request would provide an alternative to American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 2001 Edition through the 2003 Addenda, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-A, Item No. 81, 11, which requires volumetric examination of the reactor vessel circumferential shell welds each in-service inspection interval. The purpose of this letter is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's acceptance review of this relief request. 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.

Pursuant to Section 50.55a(z)(1) of Title 1O of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), the applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed alternatives would provide an acceptable level of quality and safety, or that compliance with the specified requirements of Section 50.55a would result in hardship or unusual difficulty without a compensating increase in the level of quality or safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed your application and concluded 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 staff's 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 staff's detailed technical review by separate correspondence.

B. Sullivan If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-3629.

Diane Render, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 1-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-333 cc: Distribution via Listserv

ML16270A046 OFFICE LPL 1-1/PM LPL 1-1/LA LPL 1-1/BC LPL 1-1/PM NAME DRender KGoldstein TTate DRender DATE 09/26/2016 09/26/16 09/29/16 10/03/16