ML20207P124

Forwards Request for Addl Info for 861217 Proposed Tech Spec Change Re Surveillance Requirements for Cold Leg Accumulator Isolation Valves

ML20207P124
Person / Time
Site:	McGuire, Mcguire
Issue date:	01/12/1987
From:	Hood D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Tucker H DUKE POWER CO.
References
NUDOCS 8701150052
Download: ML20207P124 (3)

Text

-

4

~

p

_. Docket Nos.:

50-369 and 370

[

12 JAN 1997 Mr. H. B. Tucker, Vice President Nuclear Production Department Duke Power Ccepany 422 South Church Street-Charlotte, North Carolina-28242

Subject:

Request for' Additional Information Regarding Surveillance Requirenents for the Cold Leg Accumulator Isolation Valves t-j..

The NRC staff is in receipt of your proposed change to the McGuire Technical Specifications, by letter dated December 17, 1986, regarding surveillance -

i z

requirements for the cold leg accumulator isolation valves. We find that additional infomation, identified in the enclosure. =1s needed before our l

review can be initiated.

Contactmeat(301),492-8962 if you have questions.

Sincerely, Darl S. Hood, Project Manager PWR Project Directorate #4 l

Division of PWR Licensing-A

Enclosure:

As stated I

cc: See next page ISTD! BHT _THN:

Docket File ]

Local run NRC PDR PWR#4 Reading BJYoungblood Reading DHood MDuncan ACRS(10)

EJordan JPartlow BGrimes

/p[

f l

NThompson a 3 \\4 h

v PWRp4/DPWR-A PWR4[DPWR-A P

D D lR-A DHood/ rad MDU Jn BJ d ood 01/ - /87 01/g/87 01/

7 f

8701150052 870112 hDR ADOCK 05000369 i

PDR L

4 h

Mr. H. B. Tucker Duke Power Company McGuire Nuclear Station cc:

Mr. A.V. Carr, Esq.

Dr. John M. Barry Duke Power Company Department of Environmental Health P. O. Box-33189 Mecklenburg County

-422 South Church Street 1200 Blythe Boulevard Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Charlotte, North Carolina 28203 County Manager of Mecklenburg County

- 720 East Fourth Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Chairman, North Carolina Utilities Commission Mr. Robert Gill Dobbs Building Duke Power Company 430 North Salisbury Street Nuclear Production Department Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 P. O. Box 33189 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Mr. Dayne H. Brown, Chief Radiation Protection Branch J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.

Division of Facility Services Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell Department of Human Resources and Reynolds 701 Barbour Drive 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-2008 Washington, D. C.

20036 Senior Resident Inspector c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Route 4, Box 529 Hunterville, North Carolina 28078 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900

' Atlanta, Georgia 30323 L. L. Williams Area Manager, Mid-South Area ESSD Projects Westinghouse Electric Corporation kNC West Tower - Bay 239 P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 J

i y

m-.m

._,_1

.-y

4 J'

Enclosure RE0 VEST FOR ADDITIONAL INF0PMATION REGARDING PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE OF DECEMBER 17, 1986 - MCGilIRE NUCLEAR STATION,ifNITS 1 AND 2 1.

You state (incorrectly) that the proposed TS change is toJllow the implementation of planned modifications (i.e., installation of a power disconnect switch on the control board for the cold leg accumulator discharge isolation valves). We find that the effect of the proposed TS change would be to provide for use of the design modification as the basis for verifying that power to the isolation valve operator is disconnected, without additionally verifying removal of the breaker from the. circuit.

Provide a technical justification for your proposed request accordingly.

Explain how the verification required by the TS, as modified, would be accomplished.

Include in this discussion the conformance of the design modification to NRC Branch Technical Positions ICSR-4(PSB) and ICSB-18 (PSB).

Include electrical drawings and schematics as appropriate to support your technical discussion.

2.

You state that the proposed change would not involve a significant inc'rease in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the installation of a power disconnect switch on the control board for the isolation valves would allow operators an alternative means of ensuring the operability of the accumulators. Explain why the alternative means would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

3.

You state that the proposed change would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because the only hardware change is to allow operators an alternative means of carrying out a surveillance that is presently required to ensure safety system operability. Explain why the alternative means would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

' 4.

You state that the proposed change would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because the installation of a power disconnect switch on the control board for the isolation valves would allow an alternate means for meeting a required surveillance and would not affect any safety margins.

Explain why the alternate means would not affect any safety margins.

- - -