ML20215B943
| ML20215B943 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1987 |
| From: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215B946 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-65551, TAC-65552, NUDOCS 8706170520 | |
| Download: ML20215B943 (7) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:] ,o i DUKE POWER GOMPANY P.O. Box 33180 CitARLOTTE. N.C. 28242 !!AL 11. TUCKER TELEPHONE vics PArmanerr-(704) 373-4S31 at1LEam PantsUf/FtDN i June 10, 1987 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Attention: Document Control Desk l Washington, D. C. 20555 j 4 Re: Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414 Technical Specification Amendment l Surveillance-Interval Extension l
Dear Sir:
I i This letter contains a proposed amendment to the Technical Specifications for Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52 for Catawba Units 1 and 2. The attachment request involves extending several surveillance intervals out to the Unit 2 first refueling. The extensions are needed due to initial startup testing and the main generator replacement which resulted in a lengthened first cycle. -.These changes are applicable to Unit 2 only, however, Unit 1 is re erenced since f the Technical Specificatons are combined for both Units. ) J The attachment contains the proposed change and a discussion of the justification ') and safety analysis. The analysis is included pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91 and it has been concluded that the proposed amendment does not involve significant hazards considerations. This request involves one amendment request to Catawba's Technical Specifications. Accordingly, pursuant to 10 CFR 170.21 a check for $150.00 is enclosed. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91 (b) (1) the appropriate South Carolina State official is l being provided a copy of this amendment request. Very truly yours, 'M i Hal B. Tucker i 6l RWO/67/sbn Attachment- { 8706170520 870610 l 4}3 gg DR ADOCK O 11/60 00
y 1 U. S.. Nuclur. Regulatory Commission June 10, 1987 .Page Twou Dr.'IJ. Nelson' Grace,' Regional Administrator xc: U.'S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900-Atlanta, Georgia 30323. g Mr.;Heyward Shealy, Chief Bureau ~of Radiological Health South Carolina Department of Health 6. Environmental-Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina-29201 American Nuclear Insurers c/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 INPO Records-Center Suite 1500 1100 Circle 75 Parkway Atlanta, Georgia 30339 Mr.lP. K.-Van'Doorn NRC Resident' Inspector. Catawba Nuclear Station I t
i 'U. S. Nuclsir Ragulatory Commission June 10, 1987 Page Three HAL B. TUCKER, being duly sworn,. states that he is Vice President of Duke Power Company; that he is authorized on the part of said Company to sign and file with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission this revision to. the Catawba Nuclear Station Technical Specifications, Appendix A to License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52; and that all' statements and matters set'forth therein are true and correct to the best of his' knowledge, d / Hal B. Tucker, Vice President Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day of June, 1987. i ,j L_ ^ * ;fpf Notg y Public JJ J i. ' k..L. K \\ My Commission Expires: [4[*NOT4 n, I -{ nw b U B t. l C :: o //kr n_I,/ G C00 r ,'is,,,, mo i {
) i DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATIONS The attached amendment request would allow the postponement of several 18 month surveillances until the Unit 2 first refueling outage. This curve 111ance interval extension is needed in order to avoid having to shutdown Unit 2 since these surveillances can only be performed wie.h the unic in modes 4, 5 or 6. The i particular surveillances and the time at which the surveillance interval (includsng the 25% grace period allowed by Technical Specification 4.0,2) will expire art; { l TABLE 4.3-2, Item 5.d. 08/15/87 l TABLE 4.3-2, Item 6.d. 08/15/87 l TABLE 4.3-2, Item 6.e. 08/15/87 4.3.2.2, Item 7a 08/15/87 4.3.2.2, Item 7b 08/15/87 4.3.2.2, Item 8 08/15/87 '4.7.1.2.lb.3 08/15/87 l 4.6.6.2 10/29/87 1 4.8.1.1.2g.1 01/09/88 All but two of the surveillances concern Main Feedwater and Auxiliary Feedwater Engineered Safety Features (ESF) actuations and/or response times. Surveillance 4.6.2.2 is a surveillance to verify propet valve seal injection flow for several containment isolation valves. Surveillance 4.8.1.1.2g.1 is the teardoun of the diesel generators per the manufacturer's re+ommendations. The extension of these surveillance intervals is a significant since the amount of extra time required is small and the. affected systems will be required to be operable pursuant to other applicable TecLNtal hecifications (e.g., 3/4.7.1 Auxiliary Feedwater System, 3/4.6.1 - Con k. ment Systema). Table 4.3-2, item 5.d. is Feedwater isolation on receipt of a high doghouse water level signal with no history of failures. There have been no actuation of this circuitry since preoperational testing. Table 4.3-2, item 6.d. is Turbine trip on loss of main feedwater pumps. This is reliable instrumentation which has been challenged once since preop testing and operated satisfactorily. Table 4.3-2, item 6.e. is Turbine trip on reactor trip, This is reliable instrumentation which has been challenged seven separate times and has always { operated successfully. Specification 4.3.2.2, Table 3.3-5, item 7.a. is the response time test for Turbine trip on Steam Generator Water Level-High-High. This is reliable instrumentation which has been challenged three times and operated satisfactorily. Specification 4.3.2.2, Table 3.3-5, item 7.b. is the response time test for Feedwater isolation on Steam Generator Water Level-High-High. This is reliable instrumentation which has been challenged three times and operated satisfactorily.
i
- i k
Specification 4.3.2.2, Table 3.3-5, item 8 is the response time test of Feedwater j isolation on a reactor trip coincident with low Reactor Coolant System average i temperature. This is reliable instrumentation which has been challenged three times and has always performed satisfactorily. j l Specification 4.6.6.2 is the Seal Water Injection System surveillance to verify J 4 injeccion flow to containment isolation valves. This is a reliable system with a good operating history. There are only three. valves which remain to be tested. l 1 Specification 4.8.1.1.2g.1) is the surveillance which calls for an inspection of the' diesel generators (DGs), during shutdown, in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. A complete inspection of all of the components per the TDI diesel generator owners group inspection program was conducted on the Unit 2 engines with excellent results. The results were submitted per letters, Tucker to Denton, dated October 2, 1985 and December 23, 1985. Additional inspections required by NRC vere also l performed.with satisfactory results. j The DGs have been highly reliable. Of a total of 296 starts on the 2A DG there have been 6 valid failures - Those 6 were all associated with a binding fuel rack. l Of a total of 212 starts on the 2B DG there have been 2 valid failures - Those 2 are: 7R fuel pump heim joint binding and failure to reach speed in less than 11 seconds (actual lack of fuel because of air in system). To date, Unit 2 engines have a total hours run accumulation of 2A - 440 and 2B - 469; approximately 350 - 400 hours since major teardown and inspection. All lube oil pressures and temperatures continue to be normal. Jacket water pressure and temperature continue to be normal. All cylinder temperatures, firing pressures, and cold compression pressures continue to be normal. Examination of Unit i engines af ter 750 hours total endurance run - the major inspection - equipment and dimensional tolerances still fell in new range. f Inspection of DG 1A at 1073 hours and IB at 1037 hours exhibited no changes from i that observed in major inspection. Normal inspection cycle for utilities using i DSRV-16-4 engines is about 7000 hours. l Experience with Unit i engines with to date hours of 1A - 1119, 1B - 1097 and past performance of Unit 2 engines with to date hours of 2A - 440, 2B - 469 demonstrate that Unit 2 engines will continue to meet all performance requirements, be they actual requirements or test requirements. Addit.ional testing of Unit 2 engines until the scheduled refueling outage would add an additional 7 hours to 2B and 18 hours to 2A engines. This will not have any effect on operability, reliability or wear. The present Unit 2 refueling outage schedule puts 2A inspection at a 25 day j duration and 2B inspection at a 20 day duration. The inspections are of a nature that they could not be accomplished within the three day technical specification 4 time limitation. l
l ' 011 for all four engines continues to be fully spectrographically analyzed and partially Ferrograph analyzed monthly and complete Ferrograph analysis on quarterly l basis. The results continue to be satisfactory with no indication of unusual trends that would indicate abnormal conditions or wear. l Routine surveillance activities will continue to be conducted on schedule and on
- time, j
All engines have performed well with minor mechanical equipment failures that would not prevent engines from meeting Technical Specification requirements. The currently scheduled shutdown date for Unit 2 is December 30, 1987. Therefore, the longest extension necessary would be slightly greater than 4 months. j The extension for Surveillance 4.6.6.2 would be less than 2 months and for l 4.8.1.1.2g.1 the extension would be needed to allow the diesel inspections to be conducted during the outage and to process the paperwork. I 10 CFR 50.'92 states that a proposed amendment involves no significant hazards considerations if operation in accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any ) accident previously evaluated; or l I (3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The proposed amendment does not involve an increase in the probability or l consequences of any previously evaluated accident. The probability of an accident is not increased because these changes will not affect the design or operation of the Unit. The consequences of an accident will not be significantly increased since the systems affected are required to be demonstrated operable through other applicable Specifications. Also, the extension to the Surveillance intervals is l small and thus will not significantly affect the ability of the systems to function a properly. 1 These changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident I from any accident previously evaluated. The design and operation of the unit will not be affected and therefore, no new kinds of accidents are introduced. i The requested changes will not significantly reduce a margin of safety. The time l period involved for the Surveillance interval extensions is small and the systems I are required to be demonstrated operable through other applicable Technical Specifications. Also the equipment has proven to be reliable through satisfactory j response to actuations and prior inspections. ) i The granting of this request would allow not having to put Unit 2 through an { additional cooldown and heatup cycle. The advantages to this are less wear on l systems and components, less processing and production of radioactive vastes and the saving of one thermal cycle on the unit. I i
. These surveillances will be performed if an outage of sufficient during occurs prior to the upcoming refueling outage. For the above reasons, Duke Power has concluded that this proposed Technical Specification amendment involves no Significant Hazards Considerations. 1 Y l l l { l 1 1 I _ _ _. _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ -.. _}}