ML20010H789
| ML20010H789 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 09/22/1981 |
| From: | Parker W DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | Adensam E, Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8109290296 | |
| Download: ML20010H789 (2) | |
Text
."
DUKE POWER COMPANY Powen Utntnixo 4r Sourn Cut:acu STREET, CHAH14TTE, N. C. 28242 WILLI AM O. PA R M E R,.J R.
Vicr PRESIDrNT IELEPe*QNE* AnE A 704 S'E AM PRODUCTION 373*4083 September 22, 1981 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4s\\IE[
Washington, D. C.
20555
,1 W
Attention:
Ms. E. G. Adensam, Chief
/
c Licensing Branch No. 4 p'
K. tP j-1 l
% '.h9 0; "
n s
/
Re: McGuire Nuclear Station c
Docket Nos. 50-369, 50-370
's
%N 8
-e'..
.s g) 9..'Mi 4
Dear Mr. Denton:
My letter of June 17, 1981 transmitted Revision 2 to the document " Augmented Inservice Inspection for Pipe Rupture Protection." Included in Appendix V to this document is an analysis of the consequences and shutdown methods for various break scenarios. The NRC Staff during its detailed review of this document had several concerns. The purpose of this letter is to address those concerns.
The concern was raised that Duke Power Company had-not provided the analytical basis for the acceptability of two pipe break scenarios listed in Appendix V; specifically, Break Node 152 (Longitudinal Targets - 4" Pressurizer Spray line and 3" Charging line) and Break Node 75 (Longitudinal Targets - 2" Auxiliary Spray line and 4" Pressurizer Spray:line). The Staff reviewer also correctly noted that both of these break scenarios involve a combined hot and cold leg break whereas the "Csasequences" column indicates that each scenario is only a cold break.
By letter of June 6, 1980 Duke Power Company submitted an analysis which demon-strated that multiple loop break" cases are bounded by analyses performed in the FSAR. The June 6,1980 letter was directed toward Break Case 106,10" Cold Leg Accumulator line and 6" Hot Leg Injection line breaks. Duke Power Company has reviewed these analyses and has concluded that they provide an acceptable basis to demonstrate the acceptability of the consequences ar.sociated with Break Nodes 152 and 75 described above.
QOO' s
lO
!5#' W N a m,
m.m
Mr. Harold R. Denton September 22, 1981 Page 2 If there are additional questions concerning this matter, please advise.
Ve truly ycurs
?
/
Asce42. lA.
William O. Parker, J.
GAC/smh cc:
M. J. Graham Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Director Resident Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission McGuire Nuclear Station Region II 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303
_-