ML13007A215

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Acceptance Review Email, Relief Request from Volumetric Exam Requirements Specified in ASME Code Case N-770-1 for Dissimilar Metal Piping Welds for the Third 10-Year Inservice Inspection Interval
ML13007A215
Person / Time
Site: San Onofre  Southern California Edison icon.png
Issue date: 01/07/2013
From: Brian Benney
Plant Licensing Branch IV
To: Morgan M
Southern California Edison Co
Benney B
References
TAC MF0335, TAC MF0336
Download: ML13007A215 (1)


Text

Lent. Susan From: Benney, Brian Sent: Monday, January 07, 20139:24 AM To: mark. morgan@sce.com Cc: Hall, Randy; Paige, Jason; Broaddus, Doug; Lent, Susan; Burkhardt, Janet

Subject:

MF0335-36 Acceptance

Dear Mr. Morgan:

By letter dated December 4, 2012, (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML12341A278), the Southern California Edison submitted a relief request for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(ii), Southern California Edison (SCE) requests relief from the requirement of 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(F)(3) that essentially 100% coverage be achieved for the required baseline volumetric examination specified in ASME Code Case N-770-1.

The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's acceptance review. 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 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 staff's 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.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-2767.

Sincerely, Brian Benney, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch IV Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 1