ML25118A139
| ML25118A139 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley, Davis Besse, Perry, Comanche Peak |
| Issue date: | 04/28/2025 |
| From: | Robert Kuntz NRC/NRR/DORL/LPL3 |
| To: | Hicks J Vistra Operations Company |
| References | |
| EPID L-2025-LLR-0043 | |
| Download: ML25118A139 (1) | |
Text
From:
Robert Kuntz To:
jack.hicks@vistracorp.com
Subject:
Vistra Operations Company LLC - Acceptance of Alternative VISTRA-ISI-ALT-2024-01 Request to adopt ASME Code Case N-752 (EPID: L-2025-LLR-0043)
Date:
Monday, April 28, 2025 10:46:00 AM
Dear Jack Hicks,
By letter dated April 1, 2025, Vistra Operations Company LLC, submitted alternative request VISTRA-ISI-AL T-2024-01 for Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1, and Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1 for an alternative to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code to adopt Code Case N-572 "Risk-Informed Categorization and Treatment for Repair
/Replacement Activities in Class 2 and 3 SystemsSection XI, Division 1." The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs acceptance review of this alternative 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 Sections 50.55a(z)(1) and 50.55a(z)(2) of Title 10 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 alternative 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. If additional information is needed, you will be advised by separate correspondence.
Based on the information provided in your submittal the NRC staff has estimated that this licensing request will take approximately 420 hours0.00486 days <br />0.117 hours <br />6.944444e-4 weeks <br />1.5981e-4 months <br /> to complete. The NRC staff expects to complete this review by February 6, 2026. If there are emergent complexities or challenges in our review that would cause changes to the initial forecasted completion date or significant changes in the forecasted hours, the reasons for the changes, along with the new estimates, will be communicated during the routine interactions with the assigned project manager.
These estimates are based on the NRC staffs initial review of the application and they could change,
due to several factors including requests for additional information, unanticipated addition of scope to the review, and review by NRC advisory committees or hearing-related activities.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Robert F. Kuntz, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch III Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Docket Nos.
50-334, 50-412, 50-445, 50-446, 50-346, and 50-440
cc: Listserv