ML16225A654
| ML16225A654 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 08/11/2016 |
| From: | V Sreenivas Plant Licensing Branch II |
| To: | Capps S Duke Energy Corp |
| Sreenivas V, NRR/DORL/LPLII-1, 415-2957 | |
| References | |
| CAC MF8269 | |
| Download: ML16225A654 (1) | |
Text
From:
Sreenivas, V Sent:
Thursday, August 11, 2016 3:47 PM To:
steven.Capps@duke-energy.com Cc:
Robertson, Jeffrey N; Richards, Brian H; Vu, Phong T; Murphy, George M; Miller, Ed; Tsao, John; Davis, Robert; Markley, Michael
Subject:
McGuire Unit No. 1: ACCEPTANCE REVIEW-Relief Request 16-MN-003 Alternative to Defect Removal Prior to Performing Temporary Repair Activities on Three-Inch-Diameter Nuclear Service Water System Piping.
By letter dated August 10, 2016 (Agencywide Documents and Access Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML16224A806), Duke Energy (the licensee) requested for McGuire Unit No.1, an alternative to defect removal prior to performing temporary repair activities on three-inch-diameter Nuclear Service Water System piping associated with the1B Diesel Generator Cooling Water Heat Exchanger. The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs acceptance review of this relief request. 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 submittal 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 of the proposed request 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 do not hesitate to contact me.
V. Sreenivas, Ph.D., CPM.,
Project Manager NRR/DORL/LPL2-1 301-415-2597