ML20214P986

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 18 to License NPF-52

ML20214P986
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	05/26/1985
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20214P982	List: ML20214P978 ML20214P986
References
NUDOCS 8706040196
Download: ML20214P986 (8)

Text

_

pue

[f o,

UNITED STATES r, M.

q (,g 13, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~ /4 wasseworow. o. c. 2osss D([

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 18 TO FACILITY OPERATINC LICENSE NPF-52 CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2 DUKE POWER COMPANY, ET AL.

I.

INTRODUCTION By letter dated August 6,1986, Duke Power Company, et al., (the licensee) oroposed that License Condition 2.C.(20) of Catawba Unit 1 Facilit License NPF-35, Attachment I to NPF-35. License Condition 2.C.(11)y Operating of Catawba Unit 2 Facility Operating License NPF-52, and Attachment 1 to NPF-52 be amended to incorporate the recomendations and conclusions contained in the NRC Staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER) on Operability / Reliability of Emergency Diesel Generators Manufactured by Transamerica Delaval, Inc.,

transmitted to the licensee by letter dated July 2,1986.

In August 1986, the essential portions of that SER were published as NUREG-1216. Thus, NUREG-1216 documents the staff's evaluation of the TDI Diesel Generator Owners Group Program.

NUREG-1216 states that:

"The staff concludes that implementation of the Owners Group recomendations plus additional actions as identified herein will establish the adequacy of the TDI diesel generators for nuclear standby service as required by General Design Criterion 17 of Appendix A to 10 CFR 50. The staff further concludes that these actions will ensure that the design and manufacturing quality of the TDI engines is within the range normally assumed for diesel engines designed and manufactured in accordance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.

Continued reliability and operability of the TDI engines for the life of the facilities will be ensured by implementation of the maintenance / surveillance program described herein."

Furthermore, the licensee proposed identical license conditions and corres-ponding attachments (except for two items related to Unit 2: (a) main bearing No. 7 in diesel generator 2B, and (b) NRC staff approval for the diesel generators'

e operation beyond the first refueling outage) for both Units because the Units

.oG8 are essentially identical.

In a supplemental submittal dated March 5, 1987, rjg1 the licensee requested that the item related to NRC staff approval for operation oo of the diesel generators beyond the first refueling outage be deleted. The S8 licensee stated that its submittal dated August 1,1986, addressed implemen-tation of the Owners Group recommendations for both Units, and the NRC staff eg oo found it acceptable for Unit 1 as discussed in Amendment No.16 to NPF-35 l

58 issued on October 21, 1986. The licensee considers the same recomendations l

7 applicable to Unit 2 and the staff finds this acceptable.

m R$

This amendment to NPF-52 approves for Catawba Unit 2 the main chances requested m a a-by the licensee in its letters of August 6, 1986, and March 5, 1987. Because the March 5,1987, submittal clarified certain aspects of the request, the substance of the changes noticed in the Federal Register and the proposed no significant hazards determination were not affected.

. II. EVALUATION 1.

License Condition for Catawba Unit 2 The amendment to the License Condition in NPF-52 would be accomplished by making it identical to License Condition 2.C.(20) of Catawba Unit 1 Facility Operating License NPF-35 issued on October 21, 1986, (License Amendment No.

16), because the same issue is applicable to both Units. Thus, the proposed License Condition 2.C.(11) to be incorporated in NPF-52 would then read:

" Duke Power Company shall implement the TDI diesel requirements as specified in Attachment 1 into its maintenance and surveillance program. Attachment 1 is hereby incorporated into this license."

The amendment to NPF-52 Attachment I would be accomplished by using the same attachnent issued for Unit 1 on October 21, 1986. The only difference is the addition of an item related to the inspection of main bearing ?!o. 7 of diesel generator 2B which is related to Unit 2 only. Attachment I would then read:

" Duke Power Company shall comply with the following requirements re-lated to the TDI diesel engines for Catawba Unit 2.

1.

Changes to the maintenance / surveillance program for the TDI diesel engines, as identified in the licensee's submittals of August 1 and September 11, 1986, shall be subject to the pro-visions of 10 CFR 50.59. The frequency of the major engine overhauls referred to in the license conditions below shall be consistent with Section IV.I. " Overhaul Frequency," in Revision 2 of Appendix II of the Design Review / Quality Re-validation Report which was transmitted by letter dated May 1, 1986, from J.B. George, Owners Group, to H.R. Denton, NRC.

2.

Connecting red assemblies shall be subjected to the following in-spections at each major engine overhaul:

(a) The surfaces of the rack teeth should be inspected for signs of fretting.

If fretting has occurred, it should be subject to an engineering evaluation for appropriate corrective action.

(b) All connecting rod bolts should be lubricated in accordance with the engine manufacturer's instructions and torQJed to the specifications of the manufacturer. The lengths of the two pairs of bolts above the crankpin should be measured ultrasonically before and after tensionino.

g 3

(c) The lengths of the two pairs of bolts above the crankpin should be remeasured ultrasonically before detensioning and disassembly of the bolts.

If bolt tension is less than 93% of the value at installation, the cause should be detemined, appropriate corrective action should be taken.

and the interval between checks of bolt tension should be reevaluated.

j (d)

All connecting (e.g. bolts should be visually inspected for rod thread damage

, galling), and the two pairs of connecting rod bolts above the crankpin should be inspected by magnetic particle testing to verify the continued absence of cracking. All washers used with the bolts should be examined visually for signs of galling or cracking, and replaced if damaged.

(e) A visual inspection should be perfomed of all external surfaces of the link rod box to verify the absence of any signs of service-induced stress.

(f) All of the bolt holes in the link rod box should be inspected for thread damage (e.g., galling) or other signs of abnomalities. In addition, the bolt holes subject to the highest stresses (e.g., the pair immediately above the crankpin) should be examined with an appropriate non-destructive method to verify the continued absence of cracking.

Any indications should be recorded for engineering evaluation and appropriate corrective action.

3.

(a) Cylinder blocks shall be inspected for " ligament" cracks,

" stud-to-stud" cracks and " stud-to-end" cracks as defined in a report by Failure Analysis Associates. Inc. (FaAA) entitled " Design Review of TDI R-4 and RV-4 Series Emergency Diesel Generator Cylinder Blocks" (FaAA report no.

FaAA-84-9-11.1) and dated December 1984.

(Note that the FaAA report specifies additional inspections to be performed for blocks with"known" or " assumed" ligament cracks.)

l The inspection intervals (i.e., frequency) shall not exceed the intervals calculated using the cumulative damage index model in the subject FaAA report.

In addition, inspection j

methods shall be consistent with or equivalent to those identified in the subject FaAA report.

(b)

In addition to inspections specified in the aforementioned FaAA report, blocks with "known" or " assumed" ligament i

cracks (as defined in the FaAA report) should be insoected l

at each refueling outage to determine whether or not cracks i

have initiated on the top surface, which was exposed because i

of the removal of two or more cylinder heads. This process should be repeated over several refueling outages until the entire block has been inspected.

Liquid penetrant testing or a similarly sensitive nondestructive testing technique

W

{

v i, should be used to detect cracking, and eddy current testing should be used as appropriate to detemine the depth of any cracks discovered.

(c)

If inspection reveals cracks in the cylinder blocks between stud holes of adjacent cylinders (" stud-to-stud" cracks) or

" stud-to-end" cracks, this condition shall be reported promptly to the NRC staff and the affected engine shall be

,/"

/'

considered inoperable. The engine shall not be restored to " operable status" until the proposed disposition and/or corrective actions have been approved by the NRC staff.

4 The following air-roll test shall be performed as specified below, except when the plant is already in an Action statement of Technical specification 3/4.8.I, " Electric Power Systems, A.C. Sources":

The engines shall be rolled over with the airstart system and with the cylinder stopcocks open before each planned start, unless that start occurs within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> of a shutdown. The engines shall also be rolled over with the airstart system and with the cylinder stopcocks open after 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />, but no more than 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />, after engine shutdown and then rolled over once again approximately 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after each shutdown.

(If an engine is removed from service for any reason other than the rolling-over procedure before expiration of the 8-hour or 24-hour periods noted above, that engine need not be rolled over while it is out of service. The licensee shall air-roll the engine over with the stopcocks open at the time it is returned to service.) The origin of any water detected in the cylinder must be detemined, and any cylinder head that leaks because of a crack shall be replaced.

The above air-roll test may be discontinued following the first re-fueling outage subject to the following conditions:

(a) All cylinder heads are Group III heads (i.e., cast after September 1980).

(b) Quality revalidation inspections, as identified in the Design Review /Ouality Revalidation report, have been completed for all cylinder heads, t

j (c) Group III heads continue to demonstrate leak-free l

perfomance. This should be confimed with TDI before j

air-roll tests are discontinued.

j 5.

Periodic inspections of the turbochargers shall include the l1 following:

I

[

(a) The turbocharger thrust bearings should be visually inspected l

for excessive wear after 40 nonprelubed starts since the previous visual inspection.

i t

3,.

' (b) Turbocharger rotor axial clearance should be measured at each refueling outage to verify compliance with TDI/Elliott specifications.

In addition, thrust bearing measurements should be compared with reasurements taken previously to detemine a need for further inspection or corrective action.

(c) Spectrographic and ferrographic engine oil analysis shall be performed quarterly to provide early evidence of bearing 4

degradation.

Particular attention should be paid to copper level and particulate size, which could signify thrust bearing degradation.

(d) The nozzle ring corrponents and inlet guide vanes should be visually inspected at each refueling outage for missing parts or parts showing distress on a one-turbocharger-per-refueling-outage basis.

In addition, these inspections should be perfomed for all turbochargers at each turbo-charger overhaul (i.e., at approximately 5-year intervals).

i If any missing parts or distress is noted, the entire ring assembly should be replaced and the subject turbocharger should be reinspected at the next refueling outage.

6 Main bearing No. 7 of emergency diesel generator 2B shall be dissassembled and inspected at each refueling outage, both visually and with liquid penetrant, to verify that the bearings are free of distress. Subsequent to reassembly, run-in testing shall be performed in accordance with i

i manufacturer's recomendations.

2.

Justification for the Proposed Changes As discussed in NUREG-1216, the staff has concluded that resolution of the TDI diesel generator issue involves implementation of an acceptable Phase I program t

as identified in Section 2.1 of NUREG-1216, an acceptable Phase II program as identified in Sectin 2.2 of NUREG-1216, and implementation of an acceptable maintenance and surveillance pgoram as identified in Section 2.3 of NUREG-1216.

The licensee's implementation of each of these phases is discussed below.

(a) Resolution of Phase I Phase I relates to the resolution of known generic areas intended by the Owners Group to serve as a basis for the licensing plants during the period before completion of Phase. II of the Owners Group program. By letters dated August 1, and September 11, 1986, the licensee responded, among other things, to the items in Section 2.1 of NUREG-1216. The licensee's submittals documented past actions and provided the necessary commitments for all items required by Section 2.1 of NUREG-1216.

The staff has reviewed these submittals and finds that the licensee has met Section 2.1 of NUREG-1216 requirements for an acceptable l

Phase I program.

y

.g*

(b) Resolution of Phase 11

' Phase II relates to design review / quality revalidation of a large set of important engine components to ensure that their design and manufacture, including. spec-ifications, quality control and quality assurance, and operational surveillance and maintenance, are adequate. By letter dated November 4. -1985, the licensee documented the Design Review and Quality Revalidation (DR/0R) Review for Catawba Unit.1. The licensee considers the design review conducted on Unit I diesels to be applicable to Unit 2 diesels. The licensee transmitted the results of Quality Revalidation (OR) Inspections to the NRC staff by letters dated October 2, 1985 (diesel 2A), December 23, 1985 (diesel 2B), and May 28, 1986 (diesel 2A). As documented in these reports and the August 1, 1986 submittal, the licensee has completed Phase II of the Owners Group recommendations for Unit 2.

By letter dated May 19, 1986, the licensee informed the staff of its actions related to three design modifications proposed by the Owners Group.

The staff has reviewed these actions and finds that they provide acceptable alternatives for implementing the Owners Group recomendations. Furthermore, the staff finds that the licensee has met Section 2.2 of NUREG-1216 requirements for an acceptable Phase II program.

(c) Resolution of Maintenance and Surveillance Program This program relates to expanded engine tests and inspections as.needed to

4;; ort Phases I and II. The licensee has implemented the maintenance and curveillance recomendations developed by the Owners Group in Appendix II, Revision 2, of the DR/0R report for Catawba. Furthermore, the staff proposed the sample license conditions in NUREG-1216 to ensure adequate inspection of certain components. By letters dated August 6, 1986, and March 5, 1987, the licensee proposed identical license conditions and corresponding attachments (except for the inspection of main bearing No. 7 of diesel generator 2B which is related to Unit 2 only) for both Units because the Units are essentially identical. The staff has reviewed the licensee's submittals and finds that the licensee has met Section 2.3 of NUREG-1216 requirements for an acceptable maintenance and surveillance program.

III. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION The amendment involves a change in use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10.CFR Part 20 and changes in surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that the amendment involves 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 exposures. The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there have been no public coments on such finding. Accordingly, the amendment meets the elioibility criteria for catecorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Section 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant.to 10 t

CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.

I'.$'...

v IV. CONCLUSION The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (51 FR 30561) on August 27, 1986, and consulted with the state of South Carolina. No public comments were received, and the state of South Carolina did not have any comments.

We have 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, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

Principal Contributors:

Kahten Jabbour, PD#II-3/DRP-I/II Dated: May 26, 1987 O

i I

I

V 6

May 26, 1987

AMENDMENT.NO. 18 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF -CATAWBA-NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 2

' DISTRIBUTION: w/ enclosures':

Z'6M.w@w.~.u%JPb Iw

~y pgp+

Local PDR NSIC PRC Systen.'-

PWR#4 R/F-B. J. Youngblood K. Jabbour-M. Duncan

~OGC-Bethesda T Barnhart. (8)

E. L. Jordan L. J. Harmon s

B. Grimes J. Partlow ACRS (IO)

E. Butcher

-W. Jones

-F0B OPA LFMB l

I l-

.