ML20133H546

Forwards Request for Addl Info Regarding Turbine Overspeed Protection to Complete Review of Util Re Proposed Tech Spec Changes.Response Requested within 60 Days of Ltr Date

ML20133H546
Person / Time
Site:	McGuire, Mcguire
Issue date:	10/15/1985
From:	Adensam E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Tucker H DUKE POWER CO.
References
TAC-59623, TAC-59624, NUDOCS 8510180003
Download: ML20133H546 (3)

Text

a Octot:2r 150 1985 OISTRIBUTION:

E et Nos. 50-369/370 ,

NRC POR Docket Nos: 50-369 Local POR and 50-370 PRC System LB #4 r/f EAdensam DHood Mr. H. B. Tucker, Vice President MDuncan Nuclear Production Department Attorney, OELD Duke Power Company JPartlow 422 South Church Street EJordan Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 BGrimes ACRS (16)

Dear Mr. Tt:

ker:

Subject:

Request for Additional Information Regarding Turbine Overspeed Protection: McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2 The NRC staff is reviewing your letter of August 30, 1985, which proposes tech-nical specification changes regarding turbine overspeed protection for McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2. We find that additional information identified in the enclosure is needed to complete this review.

Your response to the enclosure is requested within 60 days of this letter. Con-tact our project manager, Darl Hood at (301) 492-8408 if you have any questions.

The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.

Sincerely, Original Signed by Kahtan N. Jabbour for Elinor G. Adensam, Chief Licensing Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

Request for Additional Information ec: See next page

/

^D S 1 ,

jb N DL:LE #4 LA:DL:L DHood/hmc MDun2a'n,B #4 DL:LB #4 f '

EAdensam"[0 10/q/85 10/// /85 10//l/85 i

gWija!i!8%!?

P

i j

l l Mr. H. B. Tucker i Duke Power Company McGuire Nuclear Station i CC:

! Mr. A. Carr Dr. John M. Barry t

Duke Power Company Department of Environmental Health

! P. O. Box 33189 Mecklenburg County 1 422 South Church Street 1200 Blythe Boulevard Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Charlotte, North Carolina 28203 l

1 Mr. F. J. Twogood County Manager of Mecklenburg County Power Systems Division 720 East FoJrth Street I

Westinghouse Electric Corp. Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Chairman, North Carolina Utilities 3 Commission i Mr. Robert Gill Dobbs Building

.I Duke Power Company 430 North Salisbury Street i Nuclear Production Department Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

, P. O. Box 33189 i Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Mr. Dayne H. Brown, Chief i Radiation Protection Branch

! J. Michael McGarry, !!!, Esq. Division of Facility Services Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell Department of Human Resources and Reynolds P.O. Box 12200 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W. Raleigh, North Carolina 27605

Washington, D. C. 20036 Senior Resident Inspector

, c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission l Route 4, Box 529 l Hunterville, North Carolina 28078 j Regional Administrator, Region !!

. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, i

101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 i L. L. Williams

! Operating Plants Projects Regional Manager

Westinghouse Electric Corporation - R&D 701 P. O. Box 2728

{ Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 i

I l

l I

I

ENCLOSURE RE00EST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING TURBINE OVERSPEED PROTECTION MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 Provide the following additional information regarding your letter of August 30, 1985, which seeks technical specification changes with respect to McGuire's turbine overspeed protection (TOP):

(1) In Attachment II of your submittal, you state that a study has shown that McGuire Nuclear Station has the same or very similar equipment in the TOP system as those of the Farley Nuclear Plant. Provide the study (or a suitable reference if publically available). Clarify (a) whether you extrapolated results from the Westinghouse evaluation and applied them to the McGuire TOP system assurance program accordingly; or (b) whether the study is an independent analysis of the McGuire TOP system.

(2) You propose certain test performance periods which deviate from the Westinghouse recommendations for Farley. For example, Westinghouse recommended a monthly test of turbine valves whereas you propose testing every 4 months (Section 4.4 of Appendix I). You state that these deviations have been deemed appropriate for McGuire based on actual test results which indicate that the testing frequency does not need to be increased. Provide these test results and justify cuantitatively the using of these test results in deriving longer periods of testing, calibration, and maintenance intervals.

(3) You state in Attachment III that "The potential insignificant increase of catastrophic turbine failure would not have any adverse impact on the power plant safety or safety related equipment." Pro-vide quantitative results (e.g., failure probability per year) to substantiate this statement. Compare the failure probability of the TOP system with the proposed testing intervals to the failure prov-ability of the TOP system with the testing intervals within the standard Technical Specification.

l l

i i