ML110460439: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
Line 18: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:From: Mozafari, Brenda Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 12:41 PM To: Castell, Curt Cc: Saba, Farideh; Lingam, Siva  
{{#Wiki_filter:From:                       Mozafari, Brenda Sent:                       Tuesday, February 15, 2011 12:41 PM To:                         Castell, Curt Cc:                         Saba, Farideh; Lingam, Siva


==Subject:==
==Subject:==
TAC ME5407 - Acceptance Review for ISI Relief Request No. 23  
TAC ME5407 - Acceptance Review for ISI Relief Request No. 23 By letter dated January 27, 2011, Carolina Power & Light Company, now doing business as Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc., submitted a relief request for the H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i), you requested NRC approval of a proposed alternative to the interval requirements for the reactor vessel Inservice Inspection (ISI). Specifically, the alternative would extend the ISI intervals for reactor vessel welds (Examination Category B-A) and nozzle-to-vessel welds (Examination Category B-D) from 10 years to 20 years. The proposed alternative is applicable to the 4th ISI interval.
 
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 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.
By letter dated January 27, 2011, Carolina Power & Light Company, now doing business as Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc., submitted a relief request for the H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i), you requested NRC approval of a proposed alternative to the interval requirements for the reactor vessel Inservice Inspection (ISI). Specifically, the alternative would extend the ISI intervals for reactor vessel welds (Examination Category B-A) and nozzle-to-vessel welds (Examination Category B-D) from 10 years to 20 years. The proposed alternative is applicable to the 4th ISI interval.
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 relief 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. You have also requested an unusually shortened schedule to support planning for the early 2012 refueling outage. We are aware of your need and will try to support.
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 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.
If additional information is needed, you will be advised by separate correspondence.
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 relief 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 ability to complete the detailed technical review are identified despite completion of an adequate acceptance review. You have also requested an unusually shortened schedule to support planning for the early 2012 refueling outage. We are aware of your need and will try to support. If additional information is needed, you will be advised by separate correspondence.
Brenda L. Mozafari Senior Project Manager, NRR/DORL U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-2020 email: brenda.mozafari@nrc.gov}}
Brenda L. Mozafari Senior Project Manager, NRR/DORL U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-2020 email: brenda.mozafari@nrc.gov}}

Latest revision as of 03:22, 13 November 2019

Email, TAC ME5407 - Acceptance Review for ISI Relief Request No. 23
ML110460439
Person / Time
Site: Robinson Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 02/15/2011
From: Mozafari B
Plant Licensing Branch II
To: Castell C
Progress Energy Carolinas
Mozafari B, NRR/ADRO/DORL, 415-2020
References
TAC ME5407
Download: ML110460439 (1)
v • d • e


Text

From: Mozafari, Brenda Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 12:41 PM To: Castell, Curt Cc: Saba, Farideh; Lingam, Siva

Subject:

TAC ME5407 - Acceptance Review for ISI Relief Request No. 23 By letter dated January 27, 2011, Carolina Power & Light Company, now doing business as Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc., submitted a relief request for the H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i), you requested NRC approval of a proposed alternative to the interval requirements for the reactor vessel Inservice Inspection (ISI). Specifically, the alternative would extend the ISI intervals for reactor vessel welds (Examination Category B-A) and nozzle-to-vessel welds (Examination Category B-D) from 10 years to 20 years. The proposed alternative is applicable to the 4th ISI interval.

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 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.

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 relief 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. You have also requested an unusually shortened schedule to support planning for the early 2012 refueling outage. We are aware of your need and will try to support.

If additional information is needed, you will be advised by separate correspondence.

Brenda L. Mozafari Senior Project Manager, NRR/DORL U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-2020 email: brenda.mozafari@nrc.gov

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML110460439&oldid=2121897"