ML20128K144

Request Telcon W/Duke Power Co Re Listed Issues Related to 960621 Amend Request Re Reactor Building Cranes & Hoists

ML20128K144
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	10/07/1996
From:	Tam P NRC
To:	Copp S, Kitlan M DUKE POWER CO.
Shared Package
ML20128K108	List: ML20128K104 ML20128K144
References
NUDOCS 9610100290
Download: ML20128K144 (1)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ . - . _

e, o j l

o From: Peter Tam To: internet:dpcmail.dukepower.com:gacopp Date: 10/7/96 9:45am

Subject:

Request for telecon to clarify amendment request dated 6/21/96 Skip:

We are reviewing DPC's amendment request dated 6/21/96 regarding reactor building cranes and hoists. Jim Snyder is listed as the contact for that submittal. We would like to discuss with DPC by phone the following issues.

During the phone call, we will decide how to follow up.

DPC proposed to change the wording of Technical Specification (TS) ?.9.68.2 1 regarding the auxiliary hoist used for latching and unlatching driv 9 rods. The i current TS states that "A load indicator which shall be used to prevent lifting 1 loads in excess of 600 pounds"; this is consistent with the Westinghouse l Standard Technical Specification wording applicable to jour plant. The proposed change would state "A load indicator which shall be used to prevent applying a lifting force in excess of 600 pounds on the core internals." DPC's justification for changing " lifting loads" to " lifting force" is based on protecting the core internals (specifically the guide tube) from excessive lifting forces. It is not clear how the proposed change will provide this protection. DPC state that the TS Bases for the 600 pound " lifting load" limit is to ensure the core internals (i.e., guide tube) are protected in the event they are inadvertently engaged during liftm; operations. DPC further state  !

that the " lifting loads" refers to the dynamic force that may be inadvertently i applied to the guide tube only and, tierefore, the actual limiting load reading I on the indicator will be 600 pounds gr=ater than the combined values of the '

static weight of the latching tool, drne rod and control rod. It appears to the staff that this would allow the weight of the drive rod and control rod to be ignored in the event the upper internals were inadvertently latched in lieu of the drive rod and control rod. This may, in effect, allow the forces on the upper internals (due to inadvertent engagement) to exceed the 600 pound limit by an amount equivalent to the weight of the drive rod and control rod. It seems that the proposed change would only cover the case (protect the internals) where a drive rod / control rod was stuck, and not the case where the core internals were inadvertently engaged by the tool.

Please clarify this apparent discrepancy, keeping in mind that the current wording of TS 3.9.6.b2 and its Bases is consistent with the Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications (STSs) on which DPC's plant-specific TSs are based. Please provide the weights of the individual components and identify any differences between DPC's design and the design on which the STSs are based to further justify the proposed change.

CC: internet:dpcmail .dukepower.com:mskitlan, WNP6.WTLI . . .

9610100290 961007 PDR ADOCK 05000413 P PDn