ML17164A348: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
Acceptance Review - Request for Approval of an Alternative to the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI Examination Requirements Class 1 and 2 Piping Welds for Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 (CAC Nos. MF9706 and MF9707) | Acceptance Review - Request for Approval of an Alternative to the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI Examination Requirements Class 1 and 2 Piping Welds for Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 (CAC Nos. MF9706 and MF9707) | ||
By letter dated May 18, 2017 (Agencywide Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. | By letter dated May 18, 2017 (Agencywide Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML17139C628), Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the licensee) requested for approval of an alternative to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI examination requirements for Class 1 and 2 piping welds by use of the risk-informed approach. The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs acceptance review of this 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. | ||
ML17139C628), Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the licensee) requested for approval of an alternative to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI examination requirements for Class 1 and 2 piping welds by use of the risk-informed approach. The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs acceptance review of this 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. | |||
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 relief 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. | 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 relief 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 240 hours to complete. The NRC staff expects to complete this review by March 30, 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. | Based on the information provided in your submittal, the NRC staff has estimated that this licensing request will take approximately 240 hours to complete. The NRC staff expects to complete this review by March 30, 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. |
Revision as of 17:17, 4 February 2020
ML17164A348 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Diablo Canyon ![]() |
Issue date: | 06/13/2017 |
From: | Balwant Singal Plant Licensing Branch IV |
To: | Richardson M Pacific Gas & Electric Co |
References | |
MF9706, MF9707 | |
Download: ML17164A348 (3) | |
Text
NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: Singal, Balwant Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 2:47 PM To: Richardson, Michael
Subject:
Acceptance Review - Request for Approval of an Alternative to the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI Examination Requirements Class 1 and 2 Piping Welds for Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 (CAC Nos. MF9706 and MF9707)
By letter dated May 18, 2017 (Agencywide Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML17139C628), Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the licensee) requested for approval of an alternative to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI examination requirements for Class 1 and 2 piping welds by use of the risk-informed approach. The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs acceptance review of this 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.
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 relief 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 240 hours0.00278 days <br />0.0667 hours <br />3.968254e-4 weeks <br />9.132e-5 months <br /> to complete. The NRC staff expects to complete this review by March 30, 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 staffs 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 advance or in parallel with industry program initiatives or pilot applications.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Balwant K. Singal Senior Project Manager (Diablo Canyon and Wolf Creek)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Balwant.Singal@nrc.gov Tel: (301) 415-3016 Fax: (301) 415-1222 1
2 Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 3562 Mail Envelope Properties (Balwant.Singal@nrc.gov20170613144600)
Subject:
Acceptance Review - Request for Approval of an Alternative to the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI Examination Requirements Class 1 and 2 Piping Welds for Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 (CAC Nos. MF9706 and MF9707)
Sent Date: 6/13/2017 2:46:46 PM Received Date: 6/13/2017 2:46:00 PM From: Singal, Balwant Created By: Balwant.Singal@nrc.gov Recipients:
"Richardson, Michael" <MJRm@pge.com>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 2954 6/13/2017 2:46:00 PM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received: