ML20134P752
| ML20134P752 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 11/25/1996 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134P746 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9611290265 | |
| Download: ML20134P752 (3) | |
Text
-
a re p*
4 UNITED STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666 4 001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.156 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-35 AND AMENDMENT N0.148 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-52 DUKE POWER COMPANY. ET AL.
CATAWBA NVCLEAR STATION. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-413 AND 50-414
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated June 21, 1996, Duke Power Company, et al. (the licensee),
requested license amendments to Facility Operating Licenses NPF-35 and NPF-52 for the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, respectively.
The licensee proposed changes to Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.9.6, " Manipulator Crane,"
primarily to make the wording consistent with the TS Bases description and consistent with the design of the load handling equipment. One of the proposed changes would revise Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.9.6b, which currently specifies that the auxiliary hoist shall have (1) a minimum
)
capacity of 610 pounds, and (2) a load indication which shall be used to prevent lifting loads in excess of 600 pounds.
The proposed change would specify that auxiliary hoists shall have (1) a minimum capacity of 1000 pounds, and (2) a load indicator which shall be used to prevent applying a lifting force in excess of 600 pounds on the core internals.
2.0 EVALUATION LC0 3.9.6b.2) currently specifies that the auxiliary hoist used for latching and unlatching drive rods shall have a load indicator which shall be used to prevent " lifting loads" in excess of 600 pounds. The term " lifting loads" has the potential to create some confusion as to whether or not the lifting tool, drive rod, and control rod weights are included in the 600 pound value. The proposed change from " lifting loads" to " lifting force" should alleviate this potential confusion.
The intent of this 600-pound requirement, as stated in the Bases for TS i
3/4.9.6, is to ensure the core internals and reactor vessel are protected from excessive lifting forces in the event they are inadvertently engaged during lifting operations.
The specific component of concern is the guide tube, which is part of the reactor vessel upper internal structure. The 600-pound
" lifting load" limit in the specification refers to the dynamic force that may be inadvertently applied to the guide tube in the event of a jammed rod 9611290265 961125 PDR ADOCK 05000413 P
PDR n
. control cluster.
It does not include loads registered on the indicator by the static weights of the latching tool, drive rod, or control rod. Therefore, the actual limiting load reading on the indicator will be 600 pounds greater than the combined values of the static weight of the latching tool, drive rod, i
and control rod.
The staff has determined that the proposed change is basically a clarification to prevent a misinterpretation of the existing LC0 and more accurately reflects actual plant operations :.nd design. Therefore, the. change is acceptable.
The increase in the minimum auxiliary hoist capacity as specified in LCO 3.9.6b.1) from 610 pounds to 1000 pounds was proposed to more accurately reflect the actual minimum capacity required and retained by the hoists. A change to Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.9.6.2 is also proposed such that the minimum required load test is at least 1000 pounds in lieu of at least 610 s
pounds as specified in the current SR. The staff has determined that this change is conservative in that it provides more safety margin (the hoists are actually rated at 3000 pounds).
It is also more consistent with actual plant design and existing test procedures, which actually test the hoists to greater than 1000 pounds.
Therefore, the proposed changes are acceptable.
The other proposed wording changes to TS 3/4.9.6 are purely administrative in nature to more accurately reflect the terminology and design of the manipulator crane and auxiliary hoists at Catawba, Units 1 and 2.
They are, therefore, acceptable.
Based on the above evaluation, the staff concludes that the proposed changes
.to LCO 3.9.6 and SR 4.9.6.2 are necessary to more accurately reflect the actual. plant design, are basically administrative in nature, and will help prevent potential misinterpretation of the specifications.
The proposed changes are also consistent with the corresponding basis of the subject specifications (Bases Sections 3/4.9.6). The staff, therefore, concludes that the proposed changes are acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the South Carolina State Official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments change requirements with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and change surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in.the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (61 FR i
,1
i a
i,
55031, dated October 23,1996). Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 4
51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of j
the amendments.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: William T. LeFave Date:
November 25, 1996 i
_