ML13343A002

From kanterella
Revision as of 10:36, 4 November 2019 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

12/9/13 Email from R.Guzman to S.Severance - Oconee Nuclear Station License Amendment Request Standby Shutdown Facility Quality Requirements - Acceptance Review Determination (TAC Nos. MF3000, 3001, and 3002)
ML13343A002
Person / Time
Site: Oconee  Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 12/09/2013
From: Richard Guzman
Plant Licensing Branch II
To: Severance S
Duke Energy Carolinas
Guzman R
References
TAC MF3000, TAC MF3001, TAC MF3002
Download: ML13343A002 (1)


Text

From: Guzman, Richard Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 6:20 AM To: 'Severance, Sandra N' Cc: Shingleton, Boyd (Boyd.Shingleton@duke-energy.com); Wasik, Christopher J (Christopher.Wasik@duke-energy.com)

Subject:

Oconee License Amendment Request - Acceptance Review Determination

Sandra, By letter dated October 24, 2013, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke) submitted a license amendment request (LAR) to revise the Standby Shutdown Facility Quality Requirements for Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3. The LAR supports replacement of the Unit 1 Pressurizer Heater Bundles during the Fall 2014 outage to mitigate an Alloy 600 concern.

The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs 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 the application and concludes 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 amendment 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.

You will be advised of any further information needed to support the NRC staffs detailed technical review by separate correspondence. This message will be added to ADAMS as an official agency record. If you have any questions, please contact me.

Rich Guzman Sr. Project Manager NRR/DORL US NRC 301-415-1030