ML26050A480
| ML26050A480 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 02/19/2026 |
| From: | John Lamb NRC/NRR/DORL/LPL2-1 |
| To: | Lowery K Southern Nuclear Operating Co |
| References | |
| L-2026-LLR-xxxx V34-IST-ALT-04 | |
| Download: ML26050A480 (0) | |
Text
From:
John Lamb To:
Lowery, Ken G.
Cc:
Joyce, Ryan M.
Subject:
FYI - Acceptance Review - Vogtle 3 and 4 - Request for Revision to Approved Relief and Alternative Requirements for Squib (Explosively Actuated) Valves First Test Interval (V34-IST-ALT-04) (L-2026-LLR-xxxx)
Date:
Thursday, February 19, 2026 2:13:00 PM
- Ken,
By letter dated February 13, 2026 (ML26044A119), Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC, the licensee) submitted an alternative request for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle), Units 3 and 4, under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR),
Section50.55a, Codes and standards, paragraph (z), regarding pyrotechnic-actuated valves.
SNC submitted an alternative request to the 2012 Edition of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants, Division 1, OM Code: Section IST (OM Code), Subsection ISTC, Inservice Testing of Valves in Light-Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plants, paragraph ISTC-5260, Explosively Actuated Valves, as incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 50.55a. ASME OM Code, Subsection ISTC, paragraph ISTC-5260, requires a sample of at least 20 percent of the charges in the applicable valves be test fired and replaced every 2 years.
In a Safety Evaluation (SE) dated March 26, 2019 (ML19071A237), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff authorized Alternative Request PST-ALT-01 for Vogtle, Units 3 and 4, related to the Inservice Testing (IST) Program requirements for the applicable pyrotechnic-actuated valves during the Preservice Testing (PST) Program at Vogtle, Units 3 and 4.
In an SE dated July 19, 2024 (ML24191A456), the NRC staff authorized Alternative Requests V34-IST-ALT-03 and V34-IST-ALT-03-R1 to the IST requirements for the pyrotechnic-actuated valves specified in the 2012 Edition of the ASME OM Code, Subsection ISTC, paragraph ISTC-5260(c), ISTC-5260(e)(2), ISTC-5260(e)(3), and ISTC-5260(e)(4) under 10 CFR 50.55a(z)(2) on the basis that conformance with certain OM Code requirements would result in a hardship or unusual difficulty without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety. The alternatives allowed for no testing or replacement of the pyrotechnic charges or its associated electrical circuitry, and no disassembly for internal examination, during the first refueling outages (RFOs) for Vogtle, Units 3 and 4. The alternative requests specified that the number of tests and replacements would be increased during the second RFO.
SNC requests revision to previously approved relief and alternative requirements for squib (explosively-actuated) valves for the first test interval (V34-IST-ALT-04).
The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the NRC staffs acceptance review of this 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 and discussions during the pre-licensing meeting on February 4, 2026 (ML26043A106), the NRC staff has estimated, using the GEMS process for a typical review, that this licensing request will take approximately 90 hours0.00104 days <br />0.025 hours <br />1.488095e-4 weeks <br />3.4245e-5 months <br /> to complete. The NRC staff expects to complete this review by April 1, 2026. 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