ML20054F233

Application for Amend to License NPF-9 Consisting of 72-h Exemption from Tech Specs Allowing Operation at Full Power While Repairing RHR HX Seismic Supports

ML20054F233
Person / Time
Site:	McGuire
Issue date:	06/09/1982
From:	Thies A DUKE POWER CO.
To:	Adensam E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20054F234	List: ML20054F233 ML20054F238
References
NUDOCS 8206150345
Download: ML20054F233 (3)

Text

- _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ -. _

r .

DUKE POWER COMPANY GENERAL OFFICES * " ' '-3;3

" " '."4 $

422 SOUTH CHURCH STREET Cit Alu.o'rrE. N. C. 28242

. June 9, 1982 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office'of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Ms. E. G. Adensam, Chief Licensing Branch No. 4 Re: McGuire Nuclear Station Docket No. 50-369

Dear Mr. Denton:

Attachment 1 is a proposed change to the McGuire Nuclear Station Technical Specifications regarding the residual heat removal heat exchangers. The proposed change is for a period of 3 days commencing on June 9, 1982 and running through June 12, 1982. It is requested that this change be expedited to permit McGuire to remain at power.

The proposed change has been reviewed and it has been determined that there are no adverse safety or environmental impacts associated with the proposed change.

This change is considered to be a Class III amendment pursuant to 10 CFR 170.22.

Therefore, a check in the amount of $4,000 is enclosed.

Very truly yours, A. C. Thics, Executive Vice President Power Operations GAC/php Attachment cc: Mr. P. R. Bemis Senior Resident Inspector McGuire Nuclear Station Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, Suite 310G Atlanta, Georgia 30303 I

N1 82061i50345 820609 ,c,t PDR ADOCK 05000 P g

, o Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director June 9, 1982 Page 2 A. C. THIES, being duly sworn, states that he is Executive Vice President of Duke Power Company; that he is. authorized on the part of said Company to sign and file with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission this revision to the McGuire Nuclear Station Technical Specifications, Appendix A to License No. NPF-9; and that all statements and matters set forth therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge.

d A. C. Thies, Executive Vice President l

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of June, 1982. ,

I YM 0 kW Y Notary Public My Commission Expires:

1 i

September 20, 1984 i

4 l

O Attachment 1 l

McGuire Nuclear Station Proposed Technical Specification Change i Duke Power Company hereby requests a temporary exemption from the requirements of Technical Specification 3.5.2.c. Attached is the proposed change to the Specification to effect the requested exemption.

Description and Justification On June 9, 1982 it was determined that two bolts which were missing from each residual heat removal (RHR) heat exchanger were necessary to assure the integrity of the heat exchanger during a seismic event. This was due to the additional movement that could take place which then resulted in calculated loads exceeding design values. Action has been initiated to repair the deficiency, a process expected to take about 2 days. With this deficiency, the provisions of Tech-nical Specification 3.5.2 cannot be met; thus, Specification 3.0.3 requires that action be initiated to place the plant in a mode where Specification 3.5.2 does not apply.

This matter was discussed among NRC/ Region II representatives (J. Bryant, H. Dance, et al.), the McGuire resident inspectors (P. Bemis, P. Hopkins),

NRC/0NRR representatives (K. Jabbour, D. Brinkman) and Duke representatives (G. Copp, T. McConnell, H. Tucker, et al.) . It was generally agreed that a unit shutdown, although required by the Technical Specifications, would not be the preferable course of action. The reasons for not shutting down the unit are as follow:

1) The probability of a seismic event during the expected duration of the repair (48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />) is extremely small.

2) Radiation exposure to workers would be increased if the plant were placed in cold shutdown. With the unit operating at power, the RHR system is not in operation. Thus, the only activity in the system is that remaining from previous operation of the system. With the plant in cold shutdown, reactor coolant would be flowing through the heat exchanger with a resulting increase in the radiation levels around the heat exchanger. This would result in increared radiation exposure to the workers effecting the repairs which would not be in keeping with ALARA considerations.

3) Increased temperature of components would result in a personnel safety hat 3rd. If the plant were shut down, the reactor coolant flow through the heat exchanger would be on the order of 300 F to 350 F. This would increase the overall temperature in the room to some degree and would increase the metal temperature of the heat exchanger, piping and supports. The potential for burns to workers would be increased under these conditions.

Exempting McGuire from the requirements of Specification 3.5.2.c for 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> will allow sufficient time to repair the support system for both beat exchangers with no unacceptable risk to the health and safety of the public.