ML20003D705
| ML20003D705 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 03/27/1981 |
| From: | Scinto J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Cole R, Lazo R, Luebke E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003D706 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103310122 | |
| Download: ML20003D705 (2) | |
Text
o'
_ f **'Gu
.F UNITED STATES 8 \\* ~- 7/' i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,E
- 5. NM}#\\.^.... /
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 t,
March 27,1981 Robert M. Lazo, Esq., Chaiman Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke, Administrative Administrative Judge Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Richard F. Cole, Administrative m ;.,'
' Judge QL Atomic Safety and Licensing' Board Washington, D.C.
20555
. f " k.r d'
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission h
g b:
% % l0,/g C
In the Matter of i g, DUKE POWER COMPANY Q @g%,k 12 (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2)
',N Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370 X
gf Gentlemen:
7 j QN The Staff has completed its review of the information provided on the record on March 19, 1981.
In general, the Staff finds the information sufficiently full and does not have substantial information to add to the record.
The Staff also focused attention on the heat transfer calculations dis-cussed by Mr. Rasin, which form a basis for conclusions concerning potential polyuretharm pyrolysis and the subsequent incremental heat loads 1
to containment.
The Staff made some rough estimates on the effect of using different assumptions.
These would not modify the overall conclusions substantially.
We do not see that these estimates would significantly enhance the existing record sufficiently to warrant either protracted exchange of affidavits or scheduling of a further evidentiary hearing session.
However, as reflected in the attached affidavit, during the course of our review, the NRC Staff did uncover that in the actual construction of the air i
handler ducts shown in sketch fashion in staff exhibits 0 and P, there is a 1/4-inch thick panel of insulation barrier between the two walls of the air handling ducts which make up the middle panel (see sketch attached to the affidavit).
This tends to result in a situation which more closely approx-imates the model assumed by Mr. Rasin in his testimony (see affidavit).
Since this information relates to a more accurate depiction of the plant as constructed, we think that the information contained in the attached affidavits shuuld be included la the record.
3103310122
b
-2.
However, since the actual ;nformation concerning existence of the insula-tion barrier is based on.
phone conversation with the applicant, we believe that for the record this'should be confirmed-by'an affidavit from the applicant.
Sincerely, l '
l-f c
/.
Joseph F. Scint Couns'el-for NRC taff Enclosure l/
/<
\\
\\ ~~~ '
cc (w/ encl.):
William Larry Porter, Esq.
Mr. Jesse L. Riley Jr. John M. Barry J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
1 Mr. David E. Smith l
S. Blume, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Secretary 5
i l
i 1
i l
1 4
f i
8.._m.6 w
m e,-.y--,
we, ww-
m<v-
,,,.-r v.,
,,.,.--e
,e p-,,,,-
- -+