ML20101E432
| ML20101E432 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 12/21/1984 |
| From: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | Adensam E, Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20101E436 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8412260254 | |
| Download: ML20101E432 (4) | |
Text
o.-
DUKE POWER GOMPANY.
e.o.noxasi8o
. CHARLOTTE, N.C. 28242
- HAL B. TUCKER '
,,L,,,gy,
~~
m ama
-=== d December 21, 1984 Mr. Harold R. Detiton, Director-Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555-
. Attention:
Ms. E.
G.' Adensam, Chief Licensing Branch No. 4 Re: ' Cat.awba. Nuclear Station I'
. Docket No.'50-413 Technical Specification
Dear Mr. Denton:
.This letter contains. proposed amendments to the Technical Specifications for Facility Operating License No. NPF-31 for Catawba Unit 1.
The attachment contains the proposed change and a discussion of the justification and safety analysis. The analyses are included pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91 and it has been concluded that the proposed amendment does not involve-significant hazards
. consideration.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91 (b)(1) the appropriate South Carolina State Official
- is being provided a copy of this amendment. request.
Very truly yours, 1 2 0"
_p Hal B.'Tteker RWO:slb
' Attachments cc:
Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Robert Guild, Esq.
-P. O. Box 12097 Charleston, South Carolina 29412 NRC Resident Inspector Catawba Nuclear Station h
i t t B412260254 841221 PDR ADOCK 05000413 P
i1 ~
.Mr. Har:ld R. Denton,'Dirictcr.
- December 21, 1984':
Page Two
- cc: -Mr. Jesse L. Riley-
~
Carolina Environmental-Study Group 854 Henley Place Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 2PalmettoIAlliance
=21354 Devine Street-Columbia, South Carolina 29205
-Heyward-G.' Shealy, Chief Bureau of Radiological Health
-South. Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbus,. South Carolina '29201 s
1
.j.
i
'Mr. Har:ld R.'Denton, Dir:ct:r
-December 21, 1984
Page Three
/HAL B.; TUCKER, being dtily 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 No. NPF-31; and that all' statements and matters-set forth therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge.
8 Hal B.-Tucker, Vice President Subscribed and sworn to before me this 21st day of December,1984.
Rotary Public 9
MyCommission'hxpires:
DY.26 l$b t
k-
fa -
v
~
~
Attcchment 1, P g1 3~
3
.?
. {.
_' JUSTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF'SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION
~
~
N.
h
.The proposed amendment for.page 3/4 8-7 is in response to an NRC request
- and License Condition 20 concerning,possible internal corrosion of the diesel o
generator fue1~ oil storage tanks.
In a November 21, 1984 letter from Mr. H. B. Tucker to Mr. H. R.-Denton
.(attached) a full discussion of License Condition 20 was provided.
In this letter, Duke Power committed-to performing tank wall thickness measurements in conjunction with the 10 year cleaning as required in the Technical Specifications.
"The proposed amendment for page 3/4 8-6 was originally requested in an August 28, 1984: amendment request-but was not included in the Technical Specifications for License NPF-31.. The previously. supplied justification still pertains to this change request.
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 increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated and it does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
The proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Therefore,. Duke Power Company concludes that the proposed amend-ment does not involve significant hazardo considerations.
1