ML18039A762
| ML18039A762 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 04/29/1999 |
| From: | Peterson S NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Scalice J TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18039A763 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-MA5308, TAC-MA5309, NUDOCS 9905040320 | |
| Download: ML18039A762 (4) | |
Text
Mr. J. A. Scalice Chief Nuclear Officer and Executive Vice President Tennessee Valley Authority 6A Lookout Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801 April. 29, 9
SUBJECT:
WIRE PENETRAMETERS FOR INSERVICE INSPECTION RADIOGRAPHYAT THE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 2 AND 3 - RELIEF REQUEST NOS. 2-ISI-8, AND 3-ISI-8(TAC NOS. MA5308 AND MA5309)
Dear Mr. Scalice:
By letter dated April27, 1999, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)submitted a request for relief from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI (Code) requirements for certain inservice inspections at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 2 and 3. In place of the ASME Code requirement for performing radiographic inservice inspections with plaque penetrameters as image quality indicators, TVA proposes an alternative that would use wire penetrameters.
On the basis of the attached safety evaluation, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has determined that the proposed alternative would provide an acceptable level of quality and safety, and relief is granted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i).
Grariting the relief is authorized by law, willnot endanger life, property, or the common defense and security and is otherwise in the public interest, giving due consideration to the burden upon the licensee that could result ifthe requirements were imposed.
The staffs evaluation and conclusions are contained in the Enclosure.
9'P05040320 990429 PDR ADOCK 05000260 P
PDR Docket Nos. 50-260 50-296 I
,Sincerely, Original signed by:
Sheri Peterson, Chief, Section 2 Project Directorate II Division of, Licensing Project Management Office of Nu'clear Reactor Regulation t
l d
Enclosure:
Safety Evaluation cc w/enclosure:
See next page DISTRIBUTION:
~Dotet:Et[e~
BCtayton JZwolinski/S Black ACRS BFN R/F WBateman CNorsworthy (e-mail SE)
OGC PUBLIC MSatorius GHill (2)
ADeAgazio PFredrickson, Rll SPeterson DNaujock DOCUMENT NAME: G:)BFNLA5308REL.WPD To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment/enclosure "E" = Co with attachment/enclosure "N"= No co
- See revious concurrence OFFICE PD11-2/PM PD11-2/LA EMCB/SC*
OGC>>
PDI l.2 NAME Tsuliivan ADeAgazi BCla ton SPeter DATE 04/
/99 04/ 9 /99 04/29/99 04/29/99 04/
/99 Official Record Copy 04'.3043:
ly
~8 REJIG+
~4 0
Op i
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION VIASHINGTON,D. C. 20555 Apri3. 29, 1999 Mr. J. A. Scalice Chief Nuclear Officer and Executive Vice President Tennessee Valley Authority 6A Lookout Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801
SUBJECT:
WIRE PENETRAMETERS FOR INSERVICE INSPECTION RADIOGRAPHYAT THE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 2 AND3-RELIEF REQUEST NOS. 2-ISI-8, AND 3-ISI-8(TAC NOS. MA5308 AND MA5309)
Dear Mr. Scalice:
By letter dated April27, 1999, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)submitted a request for relief from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI (Code) requirements for certain Inservice inspections at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 2 and 3. In place of the ASME Code requirement for performing radiographic inservice inspections with plaque penetrameters as image quality indicators, TVA
'roposes an alternative that would use wire penetrameters.
On the basis of the attached safety evaluation, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has determined that the proposed alternative would provide an acceptable level of quality and saf t d
I' g
e pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i).
Granting the relief is authorized by law, willnot endanger life, property, or the common defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest, giving due consideration to the burden upon the licensee that could result ifthe Enclosure.
requirements were imposed.
The staffs evaluation and conclusions are co t d'h on aine in e
Sincerely, P.P Sheri Peterson, Chief, Section 2 Project Directorate II Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-260 50-296
Enclosure:
Safety Evaluation cc w/enclosure:
See next page
.l