ML20065L184: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) StriderTol Bot change |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) StriderTol Bot change |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter: | {{#Wiki_filter:. | ||
.)*-; | |||
Southom Califomia E'dison Company | |||
.rw a.m n aniu r inwm. crumn,u uu ni j | |||
April 15,1994 u u..<me wu un c. uanc.n hAAf sAi>R H i sP M Jt'.4 4 AH Mr (RH Al()fu ty i Air 4 Al | |||
{7 4)454 4484 i | |||
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission | U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. | ||
Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. | 20555 Gentlemen: | ||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
Revised Calculational Method for Determining Changes in Transmitter Calibration This letter provides the Southern California Edison (SCE) schedule for responding to your letter of February 15, 1994 (Reference). The referenced letter stated that the SCE revised calculational method for determining changes in transmitter calibration is not acceptable for determining transmitter calibration frequency. | Revised Calculational Method for Determining Changes in Transmitter Calibration This letter provides the Southern California Edison (SCE) schedule for responding to your letter of February 15, 1994 (Reference). | ||
The referenced letter stated that the SCE revised calculational method for determining changes in transmitter calibration is not acceptable for determining transmitter calibration frequency. | |||
SCE has carefully considered the NRC position and the alternatives available and remains convinced the Edison method is technically sound and appropriate. | SCE has carefully considered the NRC position and the alternatives available and remains convinced the Edison method is technically sound and appropriate. | ||
We are, therefore, preparing additional information to demonstrate the technical acceptability of our calculational methodology. This information will be provided to the NRC by July 8, 1994, and we would ask that a meeting be held shortly af ter submittal of the additional information to further discuss this issue. | We are, therefore, preparing additional information to demonstrate the technical acceptability of our calculational methodology. | ||
This information will be provided to the NRC by July 8, 1994, and we would ask that a meeting be held shortly af ter submittal of the additional information to further discuss this issue. | |||
If you have any questions, please contact me. | If you have any questions, please contact me. | ||
Sincerely, draeh | Sincerely, draeh cc: | ||
cc: | L. J. Callan, Regional Administrator, NRC Region IV K. E. Perkins, Jr., Director, Walnut Creek Field Office, NRC Region IV i | ||
J. A. Sloan, NRC Senior Resident Inspector, San Onofre Units 2 & 3 M. B. Fields, NRC Project Manager, San Onofre Units 2 and 3 0 | |||
94042cosso 94o415 PDR | 0, 94042cosso 94o415 PDR ADOCK 05000361 1 | ||
PDR l'.Q p | |||
(}} | (}} | ||
Latest revision as of 19:30, 16 December 2024
| ML20065L184 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 04/15/1994 |
| From: | Marsh W SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9404200330 | |
| Download: ML20065L184 (1) | |
Text
.
.)*-;
Southom Califomia E'dison Company
.rw a.m n aniu r inwm. crumn,u uu ni j
April 15,1994 u u..<me wu un c. uanc.n hAAf sAi>R H i sP M Jt'.4 4 AH Mr (RH Al()fu ty i Air 4 Al
{7 4)454 4484 i
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C.
20555 Gentlemen:
Subject:
Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362 Revised Calculational Method for Determining Changes in Transmitter Calibration San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3
Reference:
Letter from Mel B. Fields (NRC) to Harold B. Ray (SCE), dated February 15, 1994;
Subject:
Revised Calculational Method for Determining Changes in Transmitter Calibration This letter provides the Southern California Edison (SCE) schedule for responding to your letter of February 15, 1994 (Reference).
The referenced letter stated that the SCE revised calculational method for determining changes in transmitter calibration is not acceptable for determining transmitter calibration frequency.
SCE has carefully considered the NRC position and the alternatives available and remains convinced the Edison method is technically sound and appropriate.
We are, therefore, preparing additional information to demonstrate the technical acceptability of our calculational methodology.
This information will be provided to the NRC by July 8, 1994, and we would ask that a meeting be held shortly af ter submittal of the additional information to further discuss this issue.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely, draeh cc:
L. J. Callan, Regional Administrator, NRC Region IV K. E. Perkins, Jr., Director, Walnut Creek Field Office, NRC Region IV i
J. A. Sloan, NRC Senior Resident Inspector, San Onofre Units 2 & 3 M. B. Fields, NRC Project Manager, San Onofre Units 2 and 3 0
0, 94042cosso 94o415 PDR ADOCK 05000361 1
PDR l'.Q p
(