ML20101E432

Application for Amend to License NPF-31,changing Tech Specs Re Internal Corrosion of Diesel Generator Fuel Oil Storage Tanks.Justification & Analysis of Significant Hazards Consideration Encl

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: ML20101E432 ML20101E456
References
NUDOCS 8412260254
Download: ML20101E432 (4)

Text

o .-

DUKE POWER GOMPANY.

e.o.noxasi8o

. CHARLOTTE, N.C. 28242

- HAL B. TUCKER ' ,,L,,,gy,

~~

- === d December 21, 1984 m ama 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

. Docket No.'50-413 I' 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

• i h <

t t B412260254 841221

PDR ADOCK 05000413 P PDR

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