ML21252A215: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:From: | {{#Wiki_filter:From: Buckberg, Perry Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 11:17 AM To: Hulvey, Kimberly Dawn Cc: Taylor, Andrew Charles; Wrona, David | ||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 - Acceptance of Request for Alternative Inspection for Upper Head Injection J-groove Welds (L-2021-LLR-0059) | Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 - Acceptance of Request for Alternative Inspection for Upper Head Injection J-groove Welds (L-2021-LLR-0059) | ||
: Kim, By {{letter dated|date=September 3, 2021|text=letter dated September 3, 2021}}, Tennessee Valley Authority submitted a relief request for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Unit 2. The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the U.S. | : Kim, | ||
By {{letter dated|date=September 3, 2021|text=letter dated September 3, 2021}}, Tennessee Valley Authority submitted a relief request for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Unit 2. The purpose of this e-mail 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. | 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. | 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 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. | 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 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-application meeting on August 5, 2021, the NRC staff has estimated that this licensing request will take approximately 110 hours to complete. The NRC staff expects to complete this review in approximately 1.5 months, which is by October 16, 2021. 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 and discussions during the pre-application meeting on August 5, 2021, the NRC staff has estimated that this licensing request will take approximately 110 hours to complete. The NRC staff expects to complete this review in approximately 1.5 months, which is by October 16, 2021. 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. | ||
If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-1383 or by e-mail at Perry.Buckberg@nrc.gov. | If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-1383 or by e-mail at Perry.Buckberg@nrc.gov. | ||
: Thanks, Perry Buckberg Senior Project Manager / Agency 2.206 Petition Coordinator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission | : Thanks, Perry Buckberg Senior Project Manager / Agency 2.206 Petition Coordinator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation office: (301)415-1383 perry.buckberg@nrc.gov Mail Stop O-8B1a, Washington, DC, 20555-0001 | ||
Hearing Identifier: NRR_DRMA Email Number: 1338 | |||
Mail Envelope Properties (BLAPR09MB74095066C7AE032CF78FC8249AD59) | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 - Acceptance of Request for Alternative Inspection for Upper Head Injection J-groove Welds (L-2021-LLR-0059) | Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 - Acceptance of Request for Alternative Inspection for Upper Head Injection J-groove Welds (L-2021-LLR-0059) | ||
Sent Date: | Sent Date: 9/9/2021 11:16:57 AM Received Date: 9/9/2021 11:16:00 AM From: Buckberg, Perry | ||
Created By: Perry.Buckberg@nrc.gov | |||
Recipients: | |||
"Taylor, Andrew Charles" <actaylor@tva.gov> | "Taylor, Andrew Charles" <actaylor@tva.gov> | ||
Tracking Status: None "Wrona, David" <David.Wrona@nrc.gov> | Tracking Status: None "Wrona, David" <David.Wrona@nrc.gov> | ||
Tracking Status: None "Hulvey, Kimberly Dawn" <kdhulvey@tva.gov> | Tracking Status: None "Hulvey, Kimberly Dawn" <kdhulvey@tva.gov> | ||
Tracking Status: None Post Office: | Tracking Status: None | ||
Post Office: BLAPR09MB7409.namprd09.prod.outlook.com | |||
Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 2951 9/9/2021 11:16:00 AM | |||
Options Priority: Normal Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:}} | |||
Latest revision as of 21:32, 19 November 2024
| ML21252A215 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 09/09/2021 |
| From: | Perry Buckberg NRC/NRR/DORL/LPL2-2 |
| To: | Hulvey K Tennessee Valley Authority |
| Buckberg P | |
| References | |
| L-2021-LLR-0059 | |
| Download: ML21252A215 (3) | |
Text
From: Buckberg, Perry Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 11:17 AM To: Hulvey, Kimberly Dawn Cc: Taylor, Andrew Charles; Wrona, David
Subject:
Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 - Acceptance of Request for Alternative Inspection for Upper Head Injection J-groove Welds (L-2021-LLR-0059)
- Kim,
By letter dated September 3, 2021, Tennessee Valley Authority submitted a relief request for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Unit 2. The purpose of this e-mail 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 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-application meeting on August 5, 2021, the NRC staff has estimated that this licensing request will take approximately 110 hours0.00127 days <br />0.0306 hours <br />1.818783e-4 weeks <br />4.1855e-5 months <br /> to complete. The NRC staff expects to complete this review in approximately 1.5 months, which is by October 16, 2021. 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.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-1383 or by e-mail at Perry.Buckberg@nrc.gov.
- Thanks, Perry Buckberg Senior Project Manager / Agency 2.206 Petition Coordinator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation office: (301)415-1383 perry.buckberg@nrc.gov Mail Stop O-8B1a, Washington, DC, 20555-0001
Hearing Identifier: NRR_DRMA Email Number: 1338
Mail Envelope Properties (BLAPR09MB74095066C7AE032CF78FC8249AD59)
Subject:
Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 - Acceptance of Request for Alternative Inspection for Upper Head Injection J-groove Welds (L-2021-LLR-0059)
Sent Date: 9/9/2021 11:16:57 AM Received Date: 9/9/2021 11:16:00 AM From: Buckberg, Perry
Created By: Perry.Buckberg@nrc.gov
Recipients:
"Taylor, Andrew Charles" <actaylor@tva.gov>
Tracking Status: None "Wrona, David" <David.Wrona@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "Hulvey, Kimberly Dawn" <kdhulvey@tva.gov>
Tracking Status: None
Post Office: BLAPR09MB7409.namprd09.prod.outlook.com
Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 2951 9/9/2021 11:16:00 AM
Options Priority: Normal Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: