ML17214A847: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:1NRR-PMDAPEm | {{#Wiki_filter:1NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From:Orenak, Michael Sent:Wednesday, August 02, 2017 3:28 PM To:Lowery, Ken G. | ||
Cc:McElroy, G. Ken | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
NRC Acceptance review | NRC Acceptance review fo r Code Cases N-786 and N-789 Ken, By letter dated July 3, 2017, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. submitted proposed alternatives for the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP), Units 1 and 2, the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (HNP), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, and the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 1 and 2 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17184A184; CAC Nos. MF9936 through MF9947) to implement ASME Code Cases N-786 for FNP, HNP, and VEGP, and N-789 for HNP and FNP. The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory | ||
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 alternatives 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 | Commission (NRC) staff's acceptance review of these proposed alternative requests. The acceptance review was performed to determine if there is sufficient te chnical 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. | ||
Based on the information provided in your submittal, the NRC staff has estimated that these licensing requests will take approximately 200 hours to complete. The NRC staff expects to complete this review in approximately 10 months, which is May 2018. If there are emergent complexities or challenges in our review that would cause changes to the initial forecasted completion date or significant changes in the forecasted hours, the reasons for the changes, along with the new estimates, will be communicated during the routine interactions with the assigned project manager. These estimates are based on the NRC staff's initial review of the application and they could change, due to several factors including requests for additional information, unanticipated addition of scope to the review, and review by NRC advisory committees or hearing-related activities. Additional delay may occur if the submittal is provided to the NRC in | |||
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 alternatives 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 te chnical review are identified despite completion of an adequate acceptance review. If additional information is needed, you will be advised by separate correspondence. | |||
Based on the information provided in your submittal, the NRC staff has estimated that these licensing requests will take approximately 200 hours to complete. The NRC staff expects to complete this review in approximately 10 months, which is May 2018. If there are emergent complexities or challenges in our review that would cause changes to the initial forecasted completion date or significant changes in the forecasted hours, the reasons for the changes, along with the new estimates, will be communicated during the routine interactions with the assigned project manager. | |||
These estimates are based on the NRC staff's initial review of the application and they could change, due to several factors including requests for additional information, unanticipated addition of scope to the review, and review by NRC advisory committees or hearing-related activities. Additional delay may occur if the submittal is provided to the NRC in advanc e or in parallel with industry program initiatives or pilot applications. | |||
If you have any questions, please contact me. | |||
Michael D. Orenak Vogtle Project Manager NRR - Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Phone: 301-415-3229 e-mail: Michael.Orenak@nrc.gov | Michael D. Orenak Vogtle Project Manager NRR - Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Phone: 301-415-3229 e-mail: Michael.Orenak@nrc.gov | ||
Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA | Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 3635 Mail Envelope Properties (Michael.Orenak@nrc.gov20170802152800) | ||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
NRC Acceptance review for Code Cases N-786 and N-789 Sent Date: 8/2/2017 3:28:16 PM Received Date: 8/2/2017 3:28:00 PM | NRC Acceptance review for Code Cases N-786 and N-789 Sent Date: 8/2/2017 3:28:16 PM Received Date: 8/2/2017 3:28:00 PM From: Orenak, Michael Created By: Michael.Orenak@nrc.gov Recipients: "McElroy, G. Ken" <GKMCELRO@southernco.com> | ||
Tracking Status: None "Lowery, Ken G." <KGLOWERY@southernco.com> | Tracking Status: None "Lowery, Ken G." <KGLOWERY@southernco.com> | ||
Tracking Status: None | Tracking Status: None Post Office: Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 3031 8/2/2017 3:28:00 PM | ||
Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: Recipients Received:}} | |||
Revision as of 16:18, 29 June 2018
| ML17214A847 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch, Vogtle, Farley  |
| Issue date: | 08/02/2017 |
| From: | Orenak M D Plant Licensing Branch II |
| To: | Lowery G C Southern Nuclear Operating Co |
| References | |
| MF9936, MF9937, MF9938, MF9939, MF9940, MF9941, MF9942, MF9943, MF9944, MF9945 | |
| Download: ML17214A847 (2) | |
Text
1NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From:Orenak, Michael Sent:Wednesday, August 02, 2017 3:28 PM To:Lowery, Ken G.
Cc:McElroy, G. Ken
Subject:
NRC Acceptance review fo r Code Cases N-786 and N-789 Ken, By letter dated July 3, 2017, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. submitted proposed alternatives for the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP), Units 1 and 2, the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (HNP), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, and the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 1 and 2 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17184A184; CAC Nos. MF9936 through MF9947) to implement ASME Code Cases N-786 for FNP, HNP, and VEGP, and N-789 for HNP and FNP. The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) staff's acceptance review of these proposed alternative requests. The acceptance review was performed to determine if there is sufficient te chnical 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 alternatives 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 te chnical review are identified despite completion of an adequate acceptance review. If additional information is needed, you will be advised by separate correspondence.
Based on the information provided in your submittal, the NRC staff has estimated that these licensing requests will take approximately 200 hours0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br /> to complete. The NRC staff expects to complete this review in approximately 10 months, which is May 2018. If there are emergent complexities or challenges in our review that would cause changes to the initial forecasted completion date or significant changes in the forecasted hours, the reasons for the changes, along with the new estimates, will be communicated during the routine interactions with the assigned project manager.
These estimates are based on the NRC staff's initial review of the application and they could change, due to several factors including requests for additional information, unanticipated addition of scope to the review, and review by NRC advisory committees or hearing-related activities. Additional delay may occur if the submittal is provided to the NRC in advanc e or in parallel with industry program initiatives or pilot applications.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Michael D. Orenak Vogtle Project Manager NRR - Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Phone: 301-415-3229 e-mail: Michael.Orenak@nrc.gov
Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 3635 Mail Envelope Properties (Michael.Orenak@nrc.gov20170802152800)
Subject:
NRC Acceptance review for Code Cases N-786 and N-789 Sent Date: 8/2/2017 3:28:16 PM Received Date: 8/2/2017 3:28:00 PM From: Orenak, Michael Created By: Michael.Orenak@nrc.gov Recipients: "McElroy, G. Ken" <GKMCELRO@southernco.com>
Tracking Status: None "Lowery, Ken G." <KGLOWERY@southernco.com>
Tracking Status: None Post Office: Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 3031 8/2/2017 3:28:00 PM
Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: Recipients Received: