ML20210H652
| ML20210H652 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 09/18/1986 |
| From: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton, Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8609260247 | |
| Download: ML20210H652 (2) | |
Text
. _ -
DuxE POWER GOMPANY P.O. nox 33t89 CHAMLOTTE, N.O. 28242 HAL B.WCKER TE LEP9 TONE vionPan ewT (yo 4) ora.4 sag WLT4 EAR PRODUCTION September 18, 1986 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Attention:
Mr. B. J. Youngblood, Project Director PWR Project Directorate No. 4
Subject:
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414 Ice Condenser Door Surveillance
Dear Mr. Denton:
The following information is provided as a followup to my letter of April 14, 1986 regarding the proposed McGuire and Catawba Technical Specification amendment request for the ice condenser lower inlet doors.
The modification to the McGuire doors as mentioned under the Justification and Safety Analysis has also been incorporated at Catawba.
The current surveillance frequency mentioned throughout the April 14, 1986 letter t
(9 months) is the frequercy for the McGuire surveillance. Catawba's Technical i
Specifications currently require the surveillance to be performed at least once per 3 months during the first year after the ice cendenser is initially fully-loaded and at least once per 6 months thereafter. This wording is from the NRC's Standard Technical Specifications, Revision 4.
The results of past inspections at McGuire were provided. The corresponding results for Catawba also indicate a high degree of reliability. There have been 612 individual inspections conducted. Of these 612 inspections, 6 tests showed slightly unecceptable results. Upon retest of the doors, with no modification, adjustment or repair to the doors, each of the 6 ratests showed acceptable results.
The failure of at least 5 of the original tests to produce acceptable results has been attributed to test personnel inexperience with the use of the test equipment.
For the above reasons and also those reasons' provided in my previcus letter, an extension of the Catawba surveillance interval up to 18 months is justified and does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
Very truly yours, g
Hal B. Tucker RWO/29/ sib i
8609260247 860?l8 T
I PDR ADOCK 05000413i P
Mr. Enrold R. Danton, Dirsctor September 18, 1986 Page Two xc:
Dr. J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. Heyward Shealy, Chief Bureau of Radiological Health South Carolina Department of Health &
Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 INPO Records Center Suite 1500 1100 Circle 75 Parkway Atlanta, Georgia 30339 American Nuclear Insurers e/o Dottie Sherman, ANI Library The Exchange, Suite 245 270 Farmington Avenue Farmington, CT 06032 M&M Nuclear Consultants 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020 Mr. P. H. Skinner NRC Resident Inspector Catawba Nuclear Station I
l 1
m