ML25224A226
| ML25224A226 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  (NPF-052) |
| Issue date: | 08/12/2025 |
| From: | Shawn Williams Plant Licensing Branch II |
| To: | Treadway R Duke Energy Carolinas |
| Stone Z | |
| References | |
| EPID L-2025-LLR-0071 | |
| Download: ML25224A226 (2) | |
Text
From:
Shawn Williams To:
Treadway, Ryan I Cc:
Edwards, Nicole D; Michael Markley
Subject:
Catawba, Unit 2 - Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action RE: Proposed Alternative to Use Reactor Vessel Head Penetration Embedded Flaw Weld Repair Method (EPID L-2025-LLR-0071)
Date:
Tuesday, August 12, 2025 2:09:31 PM
Dear Mr. Treadway,
By letter dated July 17, 2025, (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML25199A121), Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, (the licensee, Duke Energy) submitted a proposed alternative to use reactor vessel head penetration embedded flaw weld repair method for Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2. The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs acceptance review of this relief request. The acceptance review was performed to determine whether the application contains sufficient technical information to allow the NRC staff to complete a detailed technical review. The acceptance review is also intended to identify any readily apparent deficiencies related to the characterization of the regulatory requirements or plant licensing basis.
Pursuant to Sections 50.55a(z)(1) and 50.55a(z)(2) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10CFR), 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 includes 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 relief in terms of regulatory requirements and the protection of public health and safety and the environment. Given the more limited scope and depth of the acceptance review compared to the detailed technical review, issues that affect the NRC staffs ability to complete the technical review may still be identified despite the acceptance review being deemed adequate.
If additional information is needed, you will be notified by separate correspondence.
In an effort to improve efficiency, the NRC staff reviewed precedents related to this request to estimate the hours and duration needed. An analysis of similar precedents averaged approximately 89 hours0.00103 days <br />0.0247 hours <br />1.471561e-4 weeks <br />3.38645e-5 months <br /> and 6.9 months to complete. Based on the scope and level of detail in your application, the estimated effort for this review is 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> and 5.5 months, representing a substantial reduction in both hours and duration. If a request for additional information (RAI) is needed, the NRC staff expects to complete the review by February 10, 2026. If no RAIs are
required, the review may be completed one to two months earlier.
If emergent complexities or challenges arise during the NRC staffs review that affect the initial forecasted completion date or result in significant changes to the estimated review hours, the reasons for those changesalong with updated estimateswill be communicated during routine interactions with the assigned project manager.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Shawn Williams, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 2-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Docket No. 50-414
cc: Listserv