ML20059J272
| ML20059J272 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 11/08/1993 |
| From: | Martin R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Rehn D DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| TAC-M87867, TAC-M87868, NUDOCS 9311120138 | |
| Download: ML20059J272 (5) | |
Text
~
November 8, 1993 r
-s Docket Ncs. 50-413 DISTRIBUTION and 50-414
~ Docket File:
Mr. David L. Rehn PDII-3 Reading E.Merschoff, RII Vice President, Catawba Site R.Hermann S.Varga i
Duke Power Company R. Martin G.Lainas 4800 Concord Road L. Berry H.Balukjian, 8 c23 York, South Carolina 29745
Dear Mr. Rehn:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - APPLIJATION FOR AMENDMENTS REGARDING COLD LEG ACCUMULATOR WATER VOLUME AND ECCS SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS (TAC NOS M87867 AND M87868)
The NRC staff has identified a need for additional information as a result of '
its preliminary review of Duke Power Company's amendment application dated October 5, 1993. The application proposed changes to the Catawba Nuclear Station fechnical Specifications for accumulator volumes, charging and safety-injection pump heads and flow rates, and residual heat removal pump flow rate.
The Technical Justification provided with the application was well written and helpful to the extent of the details that it provided.
However, many of the i
further details of these issues necessary for the staff to complete an-expeditious review were not provided. Accordingly, a Request For Additional Information is enclosed.
Your immediate response to this request will facilitate reaching the staff's conclusions on these issues on a schedule consistent with your schedule for the startup of Catawba Unit I in Cycle 8.
This requirement affects fewer than ten respondents, and therefore, it is not
. subject to Office of Management and Budget review under P.L.96-511.
j Sincerely, A
/s/
P.obert E. Martin, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate II-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Request for Additional
~
Information cc w/ enclosure: See next pace
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE
{'
OFTIE
' PDII-3 /L A*i P61)-36t1 SRXB*
PDII-3/Qd LBERRY k / KIN RJONES RHERMAN[
M P
DATE II /h/93
// '/ d//93 11/2/93
// / f /93 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY, FILE NAMp G:\\' CATAWBA \\0CT-5.RAI 3)Fo l e
100060 93111gG
$ho h
3 a
3 4
/p uem"h UNITED STATES 8 j ', e t h
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- $e
{
- j WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 8
ss j
Nos.mber 8, 1993 Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414 i
Mr. David L. Rehn Vice President, Catawba Site Duke Power Company 4800 Concord Road York, South Carolina 29745
Dear Mr. Rehn:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - APPLICATION FOR AMENDME REGARDING COLD LEG ACCUMULATOR WATER VOLUME AND ECCS SURVE REQUIREMENTS (TAC NOS. M87867 AND M87868)
The NRC staff has identified a need for additional information as a result of its preliminary review of Duke Power Company's amendment application dated October 5, 1993.
The application proposM changes to the Catawba Nuclear Station Technical Specifications for accumulator volumes, charging and safety injection pump heads and flow rates, and residual heat removal pump flow rate.
The Technical Justification provided with the application was well written and i
helpful to the extent of the details that it provided.
However, many of the further details of these issues necessary for the staff to complete an expeditious review were not provided.
Information is enclosed.
Accordingly, a Request For Additional Your immediate response to this request will facilitt e reaching the staff's conclusions on these issues on a schedule consistent >lth your schedule for the startup of Catawba Unit 1 in Cycle 8.
This requiremer
'#ects fewer than ten respondents, and therefore, it is not i
subject to Offi Nnagement and Budget review under P.L.96-511.
Sincerely, i
J
,j
%~
}
ber
. Martin S ior Project Manager V, Project Directorate 11-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Cffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/enciosure:
See next page
4 E
Mr." David L. Rehn Duke Power Company Catawba Nuclear-Station cc:
Mr. R. C. Futrell Mr. Alan R. Herdt, Chief.
i Regulatory Compliance Manager Project Branch #3 Duke Power Company U.' S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4800 Concord Road 101 Marietta Street, NW.-Suite 2900 York, South Carolina 29745 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. A. V. Carr, Esquire North Carolina Electric Membership Duke Power Company Corporation 422 South Church Street P. O. Box 27306 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242-0001 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esquire Senior Resident Inspector Winston and Strawn Route 2, Box 179 N 1400 L Street, NW York, South Carolina 29745 Washington, DC 20005 Regional Administrator, Region II North Carolina Municipal Power U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Agency Number 1 101 Marietta Street, NW. Suite 2900 1427 Headowwood Boulevard Atlanta, Georgia 30323 P. O. Box 29513 Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0513 Max Batavia, Chief Bureau of Radiological Health Mr. T. Richard Puryear South Carolina Department of Nuclear Technical Services Manager Health and Environmental Control Westinghouse Electric Corporation 2600 Bull Street Carolinas District Columbia, South Carolina 29201 2709 Water Ridge Parkway, Suite 430 Charlotte, North Carolina 28217 Mr. G. A.'Copp Licensing - EC050 County Manager of York County Duke Power Company York County Courthouse P. O. Box 1006 York, South Carolina 29745 Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 Richard P. Wilson, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Saluda River Electric South Carolina Attorney General's P. O. Box 929 Office Laurens, South Carolina 29360 P. O. Box 11549 Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Ms. Karen E. Long Assistant Attorney General Piedmont Municipal Power Agency North Carolina Department of Justice 121 Village Drive P. O. Box 629 Greer, South Carolina 29651 Raleigh, North Carlina 27602 l
M
N "6
4 I
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL'INFORMATION DUKE POWER COMPANY OCTOBER 5, 1993. AMENDMENT APPLICATION 1)
When and in what documents was'Duk'e Power Company notified by Westinghouse 'and Dresser / Pacific Pumps of the changed pump runout limits? Are these findings generic to other users of these pumps? _If so, how have the other nuclear power plant users beenl! notified?
2)
Specify the compensatory actions, as mentioned in the October 5,1993, letter, that'have been instituted until a Technical Specification (TS)-
change could be developed.
3)
The change in charging flow, although small, is a decrease while the
?
change in safety injection flow is an increase. Discussithis in view of-the problem identified in the vendors notification to Duke Power Company.
4)
Discuss the generic runout limits and'their relationship to the plant data that supported higher limits. Are the limits in the proposed TS j
consistent with the vendor recommendations or the plant data?
5)
Discuss the implementation of the charging system compensatory action.
l Is it included within procedures and operator training? Does the runout-
- l problem exist above reactor coolant system pressures of 250 psi? Will j
4 the long-term solution be implemented during the Unit 1 end-of-cycle 7 l
outage for both units?
'i 6)
When was the data taken for the development of the pump head curves supporting the proposed TS changes?
7)
Specify the 'NRC approved loss-of-coolant-accident (LOCA) methodology"'
for the LOCA reanalysis.
.i 8)
What were the changes in peak cladding temperature for the large and small break LOCAs as a result of the reanalysis?'
.i 9)
Discuss the basis for the change in the residual heat removal (RHR) flow
]
rate.
l 1,0)
In regards to the proposed accumulator volume change, specify "the NRC approved methodology."
1 11)
Discuss the basis for the proposed change in accumulator water volume in i
terms of instrumantation uncertainties and operational practices. What a
parameters of the LOCA reanalysis govern-the choice of the upper and
{
lower volume limits? Discuss the frequency experienced to.date of entry j
into TS action statements due to the uncertainty limit of plus'and minus-20 cubic feet.
)
b l
I.w e
~ 12)
Duke Power Company states that the information provided by Westinghouse and Dresser / Pacific Pumps indicated that credit would not be taken for an increased pump runout limit due to an excess suction pressure, since cavitation is expected to occur on the second stage of the pump for flow rates above the initially proposed runout limits.
Please provide information on the NPSH limit and the amount of conservatism available on this limit to avoid cavitation.
13)
Duke Power indicates that the RHR flow rate will be increased from 3648 gpm to 3900 gpm. Generic Letter 88-17 reconmends that RHR flow be reduced for mid-loop operation to avoid vortexing. Will this proposed increase in flow rate have an impact on RHR operation in mid-loop operation?
14)
Duke Power states thr. the LOCA reanalysis to determine the impact of the proposed TS change meets the criteria of 10 CFR 50.46, including the PCT being below 2200 degrees F.
Were the changes from the previous analysis such that they are small enough not to be considered to be a significant change (greater that 50 degrees F)?
1 l
l J
1 m-m