ML13029A723

From kanterella
Revision as of 12:38, 5 April 2018 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

San Onofre, Units 2 and 3 - Acceptance Review Email, Revision to Reactor Vessel Surveillance Capsule Withdrawal Schedule (TAC Nos. MF0438 and MF0439)
ML13029A723
Person / Time
Site: San Onofre  Southern California Edison icon.png
Issue date: 01/29/2013
From: Benney B J
Plant Licensing Branch IV
To: Morgan M
Southern California Edison Co
Benney B J
References
TAC MF0438, TAC MF0439
Download: ML13029A723 (1)


Text

Lent. Susan From: Benney, Brian Sent: Tuesday, January 29,201310:06 AM To: mark.morgan@sce.com Cc: Benney, Brian; Broaddus, Doug; Burkhardt. Janet; Lent, Susan

Subject:

MF0438-39 Acceptance

Dear Mr. Morgan:

By letter dated December 27. 2012, (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML 13002A008). pursuant to 10 CFR 50, Appendix H, III.B.3, Southern California Edison (SCE) requested Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) review and approval of the enclosed revision to the surveillance capsule removal schedule for San Onofre nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) Units 2 and 3. 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 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. 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