ML20247E775

Proposed Tech Specs,Changing Elevation Where Seismic Monitor 1MIMT5010 Located

ML20247E775
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	04/26/1989
From:	DUKE POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20247E764	List: ML20247E759 ML20247E775
References
TAC-73255, TAC-73256, NUDOCS 8905260337
Download: ML20247E775 (5)

Text

_

TABLE 3.3-7 SEISMIC MONITORING INSTRUMENTATION m

MINIMUM c

MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENTS INSTRUMENTS AND SENSOR LOCATIONS RANGE OPERABLE-

1. Triaxial Time-History Accelerographs

a. 1MIMT 5070 (Remote Sensor'A)

-1 g to + 1 g 1

Containment Base Slab

b. 1MIMT 5080 (Remote Sensor B)

-1 g to.+ 1 g 1

Containment Vessel Elev 619'5"

c. 1MIM1 5090 (Starter Unit) 0.005 g to 0.05 g 1

I Containment Base diab i

2. Triaxial Peak Accelerographs

a. 1MIMT 5010 - Containment Bldg.

O g-to + 2 g 1

Elev N 588' + 6 us"

b. 1MIMT 5020 - Containment Bldg.

O g to + 2 g 1-Elev 567'24"

c. 1MIMT 5030 - Auxiliary Bldg.

O g to + 2 g 1

Elev 543'

[

3. Triaxial Seismic Switch IMIMT 5000 - Containment 0.025 g to 0.25 g 1*

Base Slab

4. Triaxial Response-Spectrum Recorders

a. 1MIMT 5040 - Containment 0 to 34 g at 1*

Base Slab 2 to 25 HI

b. 1MIMT 5050 - Containment Bldg.

O to 34 g at 1

Elev 579'3h" 2 to 25 Hz

c. 1MIMT 5060 - Auxiliary Bldg.

O to 34 g at 1

Elev 577' 2 to 25 Hz "With reactor control room indicatien.

CAT AWEA - UN 75 1 & 2 2/4 3-57 8905260337 890426 PDR ADOCK 05000413 P

PDC

TABLE 4.3-4 SEISMIC MONITORING INSTRUMENTATION SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS

(~

ANALOG CHANNEL CHANNEL CHANNEL OPERATIONAL INSTRUMENTS ANO SENSOR LOCATIONS

' CHECK _

CALIBRATION TEST

1. Triaxial Time-History Accelerographs

a. 1MIMT 5070 (Remote Sensor A)

M*

R SA

{

Containment Base Slab

b. 1MIMT 5080 (Remote Sensor B)

M*

R SA Containment Vessel Elev 619'S"

c. 1MIMT 5090 (Starter Unit)

N.A.

R SA Containment Base Slab 1

2. Triaxial Peak Accelerographs

a. 1MIMT 5010 - Containment Bldg.

N.A.

R N.A.

Elev N ses' + 6 1/s" q

b. 1MIMT 5020 - Containment Bldg.

N.A.

R N.A.

Elev 567' 2 "

c. 1MIMT 5030 - Auxiliary Bldg.

N.A.

R N.A.

Elev 543'

3. Triaxial Seismic Switch IMIMT 5000 - Containment M

R SA Base Slab"*

4. Triaxial Response-Spectrum Recorders

a. 1MIMT 5040 - Containment Base M

R SA Slab **

b. 1MIMT 5050 - Containment Bldg.

N.A.

R N.A.

Elev 579' 3 "

c. 1MIMT 5060 - Auxiliary B1dg.

N.A.

R N.A.

Elev 577' l

• Except seismic trigger.

"'With reactor control room indications.

CATAWEA - UN.ITS 1 e i 3/4 3-55

l

\\

1 Discussion, No Significant Hazards Analysis and Environmental Impact Statement I

1

s O

DISCUSSION, NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS ANALYSIS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT an December.8, 1988 while performing the 18 aonth Channel Calibration on Triaxial Peak Accelograph IMIMT5010 it was discovered that the recorder was damaged due to vibrations on the Auxiliary Feedwater (CA) line near the top of Steam Generator ID.

The same problem was discovered in 1987 and at that time was assumed to be an isolated occurrence. However, careful failure analysis and trending alerted personnel that this was a reoccurring failure that required diagnostic attention.

The component was replaced and returned to service by December 12, 1988.

An Operability Evaluation indicates that the newly installed monitor which replaced the damaged monitor is operable and would remain operable unt41 it is exposed to process induced vibrations during and after unit startup.

It also states that if the new monitor is not moved to a new location before startup that the component should be declared inoperable and the Technical Specification Action statement followed.

To provide for long term operability, the instrument was moved to a cold leg accumulator lifting lug at elevation 588' 6 1/8" (on top of the cold leg accumulator tank) prior to startup Of Unit 1 from the EOC 3 refueling outage.

The new location of the monitor satisfies the intent of Regulatory Guide 1.12 in that the original location was an " reactor equipment" location as is the new locatian.

It has been determined that the installation of the seismic monitor on the cold leg accumulator lifting lug will have no consequential effect on the accumulators ability to perform its intended safety function. Also, in the new location, the instrument will not be exposed to process induced vibration.

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 (3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The proposed amendment does not involve an increase in the probability or consequences of any previously evaluated accident. The seismic monitor will be relocated to a new position which still meets the intent of Regulatory Guide I

1.12.

The monitor wil.

operable and capable of performing its intended safety function. The new platene of the monitor will not impact any safety systems.

The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The allowed modes of

)

operation of the plant will not be affected by the relocation of the seismic monitor. The monitor itself will still be capable of performing its originally intended safety function.

1

4 pISCUSSION, NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS ANALYSIS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT The proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Movement of the monitor will alleviate an operability concern with the monitors current location. Therefore, this change will not reduce the margin of safety as it applies to this particular seismic monitor.

Environmental Impact The proposed Technical Specification change has been reviewed against the criteria of 10 CFR 51.22 for the environmental considerations. As shown above, the proposed change does not involve a significant hazards consideration, nor increase the types and amounts of effluents that may be released offsite, nor increase individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposures. Based on this, the proposed Technical Specification change meets the criteria given in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) for a categorical exclusion from the requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement.

For all the above reasons, Duke Power concludes that this proposed amendment does not involve any Significant Hazards Considerations. )

i

!