ML112640412

Acceptance Review Results for VC Summer Relief Request (ME6879)

ML112640412
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	09/20/2011
From:	Nadiyah Morgan Plant Licensing Branch 1
To:	Gatlin T SCANA Corp
Morgan Nadiyah, NRR/Dorl, 415-1016
References
TAC ME6879
Download: ML112640412 (1)

Text

From: Morgan, Nadiyah Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:56 PM To: tgatlin@scana.com

Subject:

Acceptance Review Results for VC Summer Relief Request (ME6879)

Dear Mr. Gatlin:

By letter dated August 16, 2011 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML11231A250), South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (SCE&G) submitted relief request (RR-III-

07) Risk-Informed Extension of the Reactor Vessel In-Service Inspection Interval for the Virgil C.

Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1. 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 continue 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(a)(3)(i) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, SCE&G shall demonstrate that the proposed alternative would provide an acceptable level of quality and safety.

Your letter of August 16, 2011, requested the results of the NRC staffs review by January 12, 2012, which is approximately six months from the submittal date. Your letter did not provide justification for requesting an NRC staff review period of less than the standard period of 12 months for routine licensing actions. Accordingly, we have scheduled the review period for this relief request in accordance with a standard 12 month review schedule.

The NRC staff has reviewed your request for relief and concluded that it does provide technical information in sufficient detail to enable the staff to proceed with its detailed technical review and make an independent assessment regarding the acceptability of the request. 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. You will be advised of any further information needed to support the NRC staffs detailed technical review by separate correspondence.

Sincerely, Nadiyah S. Morgan, Beaver Valley Project Manager, acting for Robert E. Martin, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch II-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation