ML23275A100
| ML23275A100 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 10/02/2023 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Download: ML23275A100 (3) | |
Text
From:
Billy Gleaves Sent:
Monday, October 2, 2023 10:37 AM To:
Vogtle PEmails
Subject:
Re: ACTION: Summary of 9.27.23 Clarification Call with Southern Nuclear Company on LAR-22-0002, "TS 3.8.3 Inverters - Operating Completion Time" This email is being added to ADAMS for public viewing.
Billy Gleaves From: Chamberlain, Amy Christine <ACCHAMBE@southernco.com>
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 10:01 AM To: Billy Gleaves <Bill.Gleaves@nrc.gov>
Cc: Lauren Nist (She) <lauren.nist@nrc.gov>; Cayetano Santos <Cayetano.Santos@nrc.gov>
Subject:
[External_Sender] Re: ACTION: Summary of 9.27.23 Clarification Call with Southern Nuclear Company on LAR-22-0002, "TS 3.8.3 Inverters - Operating Completion Time" Hi Billy, I agree with the summary of the clarification call as written below.
Thank you, Amy Chamberlain Licensing Manager SNC From: Billy Gleaves <Bill.Gleaves@nrc.gov>
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 8:40:02 AM To: Chamberlain, Amy Christine <ACCHAMBE@southernco.com>
Cc: Lauren Nist (She) <lauren.nist@nrc.gov>; Santos, Cayetano <cayetano.santos@nrc.gov>
Subject:
ACTION: Summary of 9.27.23 Clarification Call with Southern Nuclear Company on LAR 0002, "TS 3.8.3 Inverters - Operating Completion Time" Amy, Please respond if you agree with my SNC Statement on the Clarification(s) below. If you respond in the affir mative, I will send to the staff for their infor mation and put this email into ADAMS right away for public view in
- Amy, Please respond if you agree with my SNC Statement on the Clarification(s) below. If you respond in the affirmative, I will send to the staff for their information and put this email into ADAMS right away for public view in about a week.
Sincerely, Billy
The purpose of the clarification call was to clarify specific language from the August 31, 2023, RAI response, to ensure that the staff properly understood the statements. The clarification was on the following 2 specific items:
- 1. On page E3-5 of the August 31, 2023, RAI response, SNC states the following: The following is a hypothetical corrective maintenance scenario with an estimated time to repair and/or replace an inverter, recognizing that the actual equipment maintenance required for any given emergent issue would be different in each case.
NRC Clarification: In the above statement for item 1, SNC refers to estimated time to repair and/or replace an inverter. Does the table for hypothetical corrective maintenance scenario represent a bounding case for both repair and replacement of an inverter or for just one of them, repair or replace?
SNC Statement on the Clarification: SNC stated that the term and/or means or because they did not intend to imply that the hypothetical example provided was for both a repair and replacement that would be done serially. Also, the hypothetical corrective maintenance scenario does not represent a bounding case for the inverter but was meant as an example.
Two issues could reflect the more variability in the estimated times: (1) the amount of time required to arrange onsite vendor support could take five or more days depending on travel variability, and (2) the lead time for obtaining qualified replacement parts from the international vendor could have a significant impact in the timeline below, however, for this scenario it is assumed that all parts are on hand.
NRC Clarification: In above statement for item 2, SNC refers to both arranging onsite vendor support and lead time for obtaining qualified replacement parts? The table for estimated timeline on page E3-6 shows 3 days for arranging onsite vendor support whereas the statement referred to above for item 2 indicates 5 or more days for vendor support, which is a notable difference. Please clarify why table uses 3 days instead of 5 or more days for arranging onsite vendor support.
SNC Statement of the Clarification: The example in the table contained an estimate for vendor support of 3 days, which is a realistic hypothetical example, and was not bounding. In fact, the statements of the uncertainties prior to that example were intended to show that more overall uncertainty in the schedule exists than was given in the specific example. The discussion of 5 days or more was intended to convey the additional potential for uncertainty (as opposed to the realistic hypothetical best case of 3 days +/-
30%) of what the repair or replacement could be for vendor support.
Billy William (Billy) Gleaves Senior Project Manager NRR/Vogtle Project Office US Nuclear Regulatory Commission The contents of this message may be sensitive. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Communications by this author do not represent NRC policy or staff positions and are not binding on the Commission.
Hearing Identifier:
Vogtle_COL_Docs_Public Email Number:
692 Mail Envelope Properties (DM6PR09MB4839904E9441132C8B9B92139FC5A)
Subject:
Re ACTION Summary of 9.27.23 Clarification Call with Southern Nuclear Company on LAR-22-0002, TS 3.8.3 Inverters - Operating Completion Time Sent Date:
10/2/2023 10:37:20 AM Received Date:
10/2/2023 10:37:23 AM From:
Billy Gleaves Created By:
Bill.Gleaves@nrc.gov Recipients:
"Vogtle PEmails" <Vogtle.PEmails@usnrc.onmicrosoft.com>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
DM6PR09MB4839.namprd09.prod.outlook.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 5243 10/2/2023 10:37:23 AM Options Priority:
Normal Return Notification:
No Reply Requested:
No Sensitivity:
Normal Expiration Date: