ML14157A055

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Acceptance of Requested Relief Request I3R-14-Deferral of Reactor Vessel Inspections Inservice Inspection Program-Third 10-Year Interval
ML14157A055
Person / Time
Site: Harris Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 06/13/2014
From: Martha Barillas
Plant Licensing Branch II
To: Kapopoulos E
Duke Energy Progress
Barillas M DORL/LPL2-2 301-415-2760
References
TAC MF4113
Download: ML14157A055 (3)


Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 June 13, 2014 Mr. Ernest Kapopolous Vice President Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Duke Energy Progress, Inc.

5413 Shearon Harris Road New Hill, NC 27562

SUBJECT:

SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT 1- ACCEPTANCE OF REQUESTED LICENSING ACTION REGARDING RELIEF REQUEST 13R-14, DEFERRAL OF REACTOR VESSEL INSPECTIONS, INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM- THIRD 10-YEAR INTERVAL (TAG NO. MF4113)

Dear Mr. Kapopolous:

By letter dated April 25, 2014, Duke Energy Progress, Inc., submitted a relief request for Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 (HNP). The proposed relief request would defer the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI required volumetric examination of the HNP reactor vessel full penetration pressure retaining Category B-A and B-D welds for the third lnservice Inspection (lSI) interval, currently scheduled for 2015, until the fourth lSI interval, and to perform the required examinations in 2024, plus or minus one refueling outage.

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 Sections 50.55a(a)(3}(i) and 50.55a(a)(3)(ii) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 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

E. Kapopolous 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.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-2760.

Sincerely, IRA/

Martha Barillas, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 2-11 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-400 cc: Distribution via Listserv

ML14157A055 *Via E-mail OFFICE DORULPL2-2/PM DORULPL2-2/LA NRR/DE/EVIB

  • DORULPL2-2/BC (A) DORULPL2-2/PM SRosenburg LRegner NAME MBarillas BCiayton (DWidrevitz for) (FSaba for) MBarillas DATE 6/11/14 6/11/14 5/22/14 6/12/14 6/13/14