ML15281A229

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Acceptance Review of Relief Request 10, Revision 0, Concerning Control Element Drive Mechanism Welds - Fourth 10-Year Interval
ML15281A229
Person / Time
Site: Saint Lucie  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 11/05/2015
From: Farideh Saba
Plant Licensing Branch II
To: Nazar M
Nextera Energy
Buckberg P, NRR/DORL, 415-1383
References
CAC MF6685
Download: ML15281A229 (3)


Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 November 5, 2015 Mr. Mano Nazar President and Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Division NextEra Energy P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420

SUBJECT:

ST. LUCIE PLANT UNIT NO. 1 -ACCEPTANCE REVIEW OF RELIEF REQUEST 10, REVISION 0, CONCERNING CONTROL ELEMENT DRIVE MECHANISM WELDS - FOURTH 10-YEAR INTERVAL (CAC NO. MF6685)

Dear Mr. Nazar:

By letter dated August 27, 2015 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML15251A209), Florida Power and Light Company (the licensee) submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Relief Request (RR)-1 O for St. Lucie Plant Unit No. 1 (SL-1). Specifically, pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR),

Section 50.55a(z)(2), the licensee requested to use an alternative on the basis that complying with the specified requirement would result in hardship or unusual difficulty. The licensee proposes an alternative to the requirements of American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (Code),Section XI for the Class 1, Category B-0, Item Number B14.10, Pressure Retaining Welds in Control Rod Housings. Specifically, the licensee requests relief from the inspection of specific welds on the control element drive mechanisms and proposes an alternative.

In accordance with NRC's process as described in LIC-109, "Acceptance Review Procedures,"

the NRC staff has performed an acceptance review 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 was also intended to identify whether the request has any readily apparent information insufficiencies in its characterization of the regulatory requirements or the licensing basis of the plant.

The NRC staff has concluded that the subject relief request does provide technical information in sufficient detail to enable the NRC staff to proceed with its detailed technical review and make an independent assessment regarding the acceptability of the proposed relief request in terms of regulatory requirements and the protection of public health and safety and the environment. If needed, the NRC staff may submit a request for additional information to complete its technical review.

M. Nazar If you have any questions, please contact me at (301)415-1447 or Farideh.Saba@nrc.gov.

Sincerely, Farideh E. Saba, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 11-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389 cc: Distribution via Listserv

ML15281A229 *via e-mail NRR-004 OFFICE LPLl-2/PM LPLll-2/PM LPLll-2/LA EPNB/BC* LPLll-2/BC LPLll-2/PM NAME PBuckberg FSaba BClayton DAiiey BBeasley FSaba DATE 11/03/15 11/03/15 11/03/15 11/03/15 11/05/15 11/05/15