ML102360177
| ML102360177 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Mcguire |
| Issue date: | 08/16/2010 |
| From: | Repko R Duke Energy Carolinas |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 09-MN-001 | |
| Download: ML102360177 (4) | |
Text
Duke
- Energy, REGIS T. REPKO Vice President McGuire Nuclear Station Duke Energy MG01 VP / 12700 Hagers Ferry Rd.
Huntersville, NC 28078 980-875-4111 980-875-4809 fax regis. repko@duke-energy. com August 16, 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 2 Docket No. 50-370 P~liaf Pi=*n "iýf
.qj=rinl "ffnQ. i-/Ini-Response to Request for Additional Infor~mation On March 23, 2009, Duke Energy submitted Relief Request 09-MN-001 pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii), requesting relief from in-service examination requirements for a Unit 2 reciprocating charging pump to flange weld.
On February 26, 2010, Duke Energy submitted a response to the NRC's request for additional information regarding this relief request.
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 M. K. Leisure at (980) 875-5171.
Sincerely, Regis T. Repko Attachment www. duke-energy.corn
1 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission August 16, 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
I U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
'August 16, 2010 Attachment ATTACHMENT Relief Request 09-MN-001 Response to NRC Request for Additional Information
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission August 16, 2010 Attachment Page 1 of 1 Response to NRC Request for Additional Information (Relief Request #09-MN-001)
- 1. Clarify whether the fabrication flaws were completely removed, before the weld was repaired.
Yes, the fabrication flaws were completely removed before the weld was repaired.
- 2. Clarify whether any NDE other than RT was used to ensure that the fabrication flaws were not extended into the pipe housing weld or the base materials.
A dye penetrant (PT) examination of the excavated areas was used prior to welding to ensure the fabrication flaws did not extend into the base materials of the pump housing or flange.
- 3. 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.