ML24194A003

NRR E-mail Capture - Fyi - Acceptance Review - Farley, Hatch, and Vogtle 1 and 2 - Alternative Request for Code Case N-572

ML24194A003
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch, Farley, Vogtle
Issue date:	07/11/2024
From:	John Lamb Plant Licensing Branch II
To:	Pournaras D, Quarles A, Sparkman W Southern Nuclear Operating Co
References
Download: ML24194A003 (3)

Text

From: John Lamb Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2024 5:58 PM To: Sparkman, Wesley A.; Quarles, Adam Graham; Pournaras, DeLisa S.

Cc: Lowery, Ken G.; Joyce, Ryan M.

Subject:

FYI - Acceptance Review - Farley, Hatch, and Vogtle 1 and 2 - Alternative Request for Code Case N-572

Wes, Adam, and DeLisa,

By letter dated June 27, 2024 (ML24179A334), Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC, the licensee) submitted a proposed alternative request for Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (Hatch),

Units 1 and 2, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (Farley), Units 1 and 2, and Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle), Units 1 and 2. SNC submitted a proposed alternative request to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components. SNC submitted the proposed alternative request to use Code Case N-752, Risk Informed Categorization and Treatment for Repair/Replacement Activities in Class 2 and 3 Systems,Section XI, Division 1, for determining the risk-informed categorization and for implementing alternative treatment for repair/replacement activities on moderate and high energy Class 2 and 3 items in lieu of certain ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, IWA-1000, IWA-4000, and IWA-6000 requirements.

The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs acceptance review of this proposed alternative 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.

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 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 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 alternative request 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. 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 this licensing request will take approximately 320 hours0.0037 days <br />0.0889 hours <br />5.291005e-4 weeks <br />1.2176e-4 months <br /> to complete. The NRC staff expects to complete this review by July 11, 2025. 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 staffs initial review of the application, and they could change, due to several factors including requests for additional information, and unanticipated addition of scope to the review. Additional delay may occur if the submittal is provided to the NRC in advance or in parallel with industry program initiatives or pilot applications.

If you have any questions, please contact me.

John G. Lamb, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch II-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Hearing Identifier: NRR_DRMA Email Number: 2549

Mail Envelope Properties (MN2PR09MB5084F1820D7F3992AA964576FAA52)

Subject:

FYI - Acceptance Review - Farley, Hatch, and Vogtle 1 and 2 - Alternative Request for Code Case N-572 Sent Date: 7/11/2024 5:58:21 PM Received Date: 7/11/2024 5:58:00 PM From: John Lamb

Created By: John.Lamb@nrc.gov

Recipients:

"Lowery, Ken G." <KGLOWERY@southernco.com>

Tracking Status: None "Joyce, Ryan M." <RMJOYCE@southernco.com>

Tracking Status: None "Sparkman, Wesley A." <WASPARKM@southernco.com>

Tracking Status: None "Quarles, Adam Graham" <AGQUARLE@southernco.com>

Tracking Status: None "Pournaras, DeLisa S." <DSPOURNA@SOUTHERNCO.COM>

Tracking Status: None

Post Office: MN2PR09MB5084.namprd09.prod.outlook.com

Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 3899 7/11/2024 5:58:00 PM

Options Priority: Normal Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: