ML120090308

From kanterella
Revision as of 10:11, 3 April 2018 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 - Email Acceptance Review for HNP-ISI-RR-12 (TAC No. ME7726)
ML120090308
Person / Time
Site: Hatch Southern Nuclear icon.png
Issue date: 01/04/2012
From: Boyle P G
Plant Licensing Branch II
To: Ajluni M J
Southern Nuclear Operating Co
Boyle P G, DORL/LPL2-1, 415-3936
References
TAC ME7726
Download: ML120090308 (1)


Text

From: Boyle, Patrick Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 2:11 PM To: Ajluni, Mark J. Cc: bdmckinn@southernco.com; Hill, Lesa P.; Stringfellow, N. Jack; Govan, Tekia; Martin, Robert Subject: Acceptance Review for HNP-ISI-RR-12, TAC:ME7726 Mr. Ajluni: By letter dated December 22, 2011, (ML113570234), the Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. submitted a proposed relief request in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii): HNP-ISI-RR-12, Version 1, "Analytical Evaluation of Residual Heat Removal Service Water Piping." The purpose of the relief request is to use the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Case N-597-2 in the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (Hatch) Unit 2, which requires NRC approval prior to use for the current conditions at Hatch Unit 2. The proposed relief request will be applied to wall thinning in the residual heat removal service water piping.

The purpose of this e-mail 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 conduct a 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 your application and concluded that it does provide technical information in sufficient detail to enable the staff to proceed with its detailed technical review and make an independent assessment regarding the acceptability of SNC's request in terms of regulatory requirements. If additional information is needed for the staff to complete its technical review, you will be advised by separate correspondence.

Sincerely, Patrick G. Boyle NRC Project Manager - Hatch and Vogtle Docket No. 50-366 TAC No. ME7726