ML102300383

Response to Request for Additional Information

ML102300383
Person / Time
Site:	McGuire
Issue date:	08/11/2010
From:	Repko R Duke Energy Carolinas
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
RR-09-MN-006, Rev 1
Download: ML102300383 (4)

Text

Duk Duke e REGIS T.REPKO Vice President PbEnergy McGuire Nuclear Station Duke Energy MG01VP / 12700 Hagers Ferry Rd.

Huntersville, NC 28078 980-875-4111 980-875-4809 fax regis.repko@duke-energy. com August 11, 2010 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001

Subject:

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy)

McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Docket No. 50-369 Relief Request Serial #09-MN-006, Rev. 1 Response to Request for Additional Information On December 17, 2009, Duke Energy submitted Relief Request 09-MN-006, Rev. 1 pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii), concerning limited volumetric examination coverage of Safety Injection System Weld No. 1NI-231-1.

On July 15, 2010, the NRC Staff electronically requested additional clarification regarding this relief request. This additional information request, along with the Duke Energy response, is attached.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact P.T. Vu at (980) 875-4302.

Sincerely, Regis T. Repko Attachment A-O 7 www.duke-energy.com

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission August 11, 2010 Page 2 xc:

L. A. Reyes, Region II Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Marquis One Tower 245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30303-1257 J. H. Thompson, Project Manager U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Mail Stop O-8G9A Rockville, MD 20852-2738 J. B. Brady NRC Senior Resident Inspector McGuire Nuclear Station

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission August 11, 2010 Attachment ATTACHMENT Relief Request 09-MN-006, Rev. 1 Response to NRC Request for Additional Information

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission August 11, 2010 Attachment Page 1 of 1 Response to NRC Request for Additional Information (Relief Request #09-MN-006, Rev. 1)

1. Did the licensee perform surface examination on the portion that could not be examined volumetrically with RT or UT? If not, provide reasons.

No, a surface examination was not performed on the limited portion of the area that could not be volumetrically examined. The RI-ISI program did not require this weld to have surface examination.