ML17355A012: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
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 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 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 440 hours to complete. The NRC staff expects to complete this review in approximately 8 months, which is August 1, 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 [[estimated NRC review hours::440 hours]] to complete. The NRC staff expects to complete this review in approximately 8 months, which is August 1, 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, 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. | 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. | ||
1 | 1 |
Latest revision as of 12:31, 8 March 2020
ML17355A012 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Duane Arnold ![]() |
Issue date: | 12/19/2017 |
From: | Mahesh Chawla Plant Licensing Branch III |
To: | Jennifer Davis Florida Power & Light Co |
References | |
L-2017-LLR-0140 | |
Download: ML17355A012 (3) | |
Text
NRR-DMPSPEm Resource From: Chawla, Mahesh Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 3:35 PM To: Davis, J.Michael (J.Michael.Davis@fpl.com); laura.swenzinski@nexteraenergy.com Cc: Kilby, Gary; Catron, Steve (Steve.Catron@fpl.com)
Subject:
LIC-109 Acceptance Review - Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) - Fifth Inservice Interval Program Plan, Relief Request No. RR EPID: L-2017-LLR-0140
Dear Mr. Davis:
By letter dated November 16, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17325B215), NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC (the licensee) submitted a relief request, as part of the Fifth Inservice Inspection Interval Program Plan for Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC). Relief Request No. RR-05 is requested in order to continue the implementation of the previously approved Risk-Informed lnservice Inspection Program (RI-ISI), as an alternative to the current requirements of Class 1 and 2 examination Categories B-F, B-J, C-F-1, and C-F-2 as specified in Table IWB 2500-1, and Table IWC 2500-1 of the 2007 Edition with 2008 Addenda of ASME Code Section XI.
The purpose of this letter is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs acceptance review of this relief 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 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 440 hours18.333 days <br />2.619 weeks <br />0.603 months <br /> to complete. The NRC staff expects to complete this review in approximately 8 months, which is August 1, 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, 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.
1
If you have any questions, please contact me. Thanks Mahesh Chawla Project Manager Phone: 301-415-8371 2
Hearing Identifier: NRR_DMPS Email Number: 65 Mail Envelope Properties (MW2PR0901MB2442CCF323C317C2F52355CBF10F0)
Subject:
LIC-109 Acceptance Review - Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) - Fifth Inservice Interval Program Plan, Relief Request No. RR EPID: L-2017-LLR-0140 Sent Date: 12/19/2017 3:34:44 PM Received Date: 12/19/2017 3:34:00 PM From: Chawla, Mahesh Created By: Mahesh.Chawla@nrc.gov Recipients:
"Kilby, Gary" <Gary.Kilby@fpl.com>
Tracking Status: None "Catron, Steve (Steve.Catron@fpl.com)" <Steve.Catron@fpl.com>
Tracking Status: None "Davis, J.Michael (J.Michael.Davis@fpl.com)" <J.Michael.Davis@fpl.com>
Tracking Status: None "laura.swenzinski@nexteraenergy.com" <laura.swenzinski@nexteraenergy.com>
Tracking Status: None Post Office: MW2PR0901MB2442.namprd09.prod.outlook.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 3455 12/19/2017 3:34:00 PM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received: