ML20215J641

Forwards Response to K Jabbour 860815 Request for Addl Info Re Administrative Controls & Electrolyte Leakage.Operations, Technical Svcs,Maint & Integrated Scheduling Superintendents Trained in Review & Approval of Procedures

ML20215J641
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	10/10/1986
From:	Tucker H DUKE POWER CO.
To:	Harold Denton, Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8610270133
Download: ML20215J641 (4)

Text

s a DUKE POWER GOMPANY P.O. DOx 33189 CHARLOTTE, N.o. 28242 HALH. TUCKER TELEPHONE vsos enrement (704) 373-4531 wasaa emonocrios October 10, 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 Re: Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414

Dear Mr. Denton:

Please find attached our response to the August 15, 1986 letter from Dr. K.

Jabbour, requesting additional information on Administrative Controls and Electrolyte Leakage.

If you have any further questions, please advise.

Very truly yours, A

Hal B. Tucker n

RWO/39/slb Attachment xc: Dr. J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator INPO Records Center U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 1500 Region II 1100 Circle 75 Parkway 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30339 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. Heyward Shealy, Chief American Nuclear Insurers Bureau of Radiological Health c/o Dottie Sherman South Carolina Department of Health & ANI Library Environmental Control The Exchange, Suite 245 2600 Bull Street 270 Farmington Avenue Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Farmington, CT 06032 M&M Nuclear Consultants NRC Resident Inspector 1221 Avenue of the Americas Catawba Nuclear Station New York, New York 10020 v\o 8610270133 861010 ik\ i PDR ADOCK 05000413 i P PDR -

a E REQUEST (1) Administrative Controls (a) Describe the qualification requirements for the position of Superintendent of Station Services.

(b) Justify your statement in the July 31, 1985, submittal that the Operating, Technical Services, Maintenance, and Integrated Scheduling Superintendents have the same qualifications in view of their different functions.and responsibilities.

(c) Clarify your statement in the July 31, 1985, submittal that the Operating, Technical Services, Maintenance, and Integrated Scheduling Superintendents each have the same authority.

RESPONSE

(1) (a) The requirements for the position of Superintendent of Station Services are outlined below. This paragraph will be proposed paragraph (t) for FSAR page 13.1-9.

The Superintendent of Station Services should have a minimum of eight years of responsible nuclear or fossil station experience, of which a minimum of one year shall be nuclear experience in Design, Construction, or Operation of Nuclear Power Plants. A maximum of four years of the remaining seven years of experience should be fulfilled by satisfactory completion of academic training.

(b) The Operations, Technical Services, Maintenance and Integrated Scheduling Superintendents are all trained in the review and approval of procedures (Qualified Reviewer Training). This training includes review and approval of procedures and procedure changes and the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59.

(c) The Operations, Technical Services, Maintenance and Integrated Scheduling Superintendents each have certain responsibilities for the operation of Catawba Nuclear Station. Each reports directly to the Station Manager.

Under the proposed change, each Superintendent would be allowed the same authority to approve modifications, propcsed tests and experiments, reportable events and procedures and procedure changes.

REQUEST (2) Electrolyte Leakage Your justification for deletion of the requirement to check for electrolyte leakage in Surveillance Requirement 4.8.2.1.la.3) is based on the surveillances already required for battery cell electrolyte level in Table 4.8-3. However, the staff's concern, as given in section 8.3.2 of the Catawba SER (page 8-11, second full paragraph), was that the electrolyte leakage might cause a discharge path through the metal battery rack which would go undetected on the de system ground detection because the racks are ungrounded.

The staff recognizes that both the concerns for maintaining battery electrolyte level and discharging a cell could be alleviated by making the checks called for in Table 4.8-3, Category A, of the Catawba Technical Specifications. These checks, however, are only required on the battery pilot cells which may not be the cells that are leaking. Duke Power should, therefore, identify what surveillances are available to ensure a leaking battery cell is still operable or propose a change that would call for performing the Table 4.8-3, Category A, surveillances on any cell that shows signs of electrolyte leakage. Consideration, however, should always be given to replacing a leaking battery cell, regardless of the results of such a surveillance, to ensure the continuing availability of the battery.

RESPONSE

(2) The proposed surveillance should be changed to:

4.8.2.1.la.3) There is no visible indication of damaging electrolyte leakage.

This will alleviate the NRC's concerns and allow battery operation when there is minor electrolyte leakage.

4 1

3 ..

t

! staff recognizes that both the concerns for maintaining battery electrolyte level and discharging a cell could be alleviated by making the checks called for in Tabic 4.8-3, Category A, of the Catawba Technical Specifications.

These checks, however, are only required on the battery pilot cells which may not be the cells that are leaking. Duke Power should, therefore, identify what surveillances are available to ensure a leaking battery cell is still operable or propose a change that would call for parforming the Table 4.8-3, Category A, surveillances on any cell that shows signs of electrolyte leakage.

Consideration, however, should always be given to replacing a leaking battery cell, regardless of the results of such a surveillance, to ensure the continuing availability of the battery.

RESPONSE

(2) The proposed surveillance should be changed to:

4.8.2.1.la.3) There is no visible indication of damaging electrolyte leakage.

This will alleviate the NRC's concerns and allow battery operation when there j is minor electrolyte leakage.

4 l

__ _ _ _ _ . . _. _ . . _ - . _ _ - . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - . . _ . __ _.-