ML15225A538

Acceptance Review - Hatch Alternative HNP-ISI-ALT-5-01

ML15225A538
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	08/11/2015
From:	Martin R Plant Licensing Branch II
To:	Mcelroy G, Pierce C Southern Nuclear Operating Co
Martin R
References
TAC MF6494, TAC MF6495
Download: ML15225A538 (1)

Text

From: Martin, Robert To: crpierce@southernco.com

McElroy, G. Ken (GKMCELRO@southernco.com)

Cc: Joyce, Ryan M. (RMJOYCE@southernco.com)

Subject:

Acceptance Revew - Hatch Alternative HNP-ISI-ALT-5-01 Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 6:22:00 PM By letter dated July 16, 2015 (Agency-wide Documents and Access Management System (ADAMS) Accession No.

ML15197A174

), Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) proposed an alternative (HNP-ISI-ALT-5-01) to the requirements of 10 CFR

50.55a(b)(2), 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4) and 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4)(ii) for the Hatch Nuclear

Plant, Units 1 and 2 (HNP).

Specifically, SNC proposes to update the HNP lnservice

Inspection (ISI) and Containment lnservice Inspection (CII) programs to the 2007 Edition

with the 2008 Addenda while maintaining and performing ISI/CII related activities such as

Repair/Replacements, Pressure Testing, and Nondestructive Examination to the current

ASME Section XI 2001 Edition through the 2003 Addenda requirements.

The purpose of this letter is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) staff's acceptance review of this proposed alternative. The acceptance

review was performed to determine if there is sufficient technical information in scope and

depth to allow the NRC staff to continue 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(z)(1) and 50.55a(z)(2) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), the applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed alternative 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 proposed alternative and concludes that it does provide

technical information in sufficient detail to enable the NRC staff to continue its detailed

technical review and make an independent assessment regarding the acceptability of the

proposed alternative 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 will be advised of any

further information needed to support the NRC staff

's detailed technical review by separate correspondence.

Bob Martin, Senior Project Manager

Division of Operating Reactor Licensing

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket Nos. 50-321, 50-366

cc: Distribution via Listserv