ML20108A676
| ML20108A676 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 11/08/1984 |
| From: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | Adensam E, Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8411150125 | |
| Download: ML20108A676 (2) | |
Text
r
- - - ty ';.
?
3
^
m o
DUKE POWER COMPANY c3 '
' P.O. box 33189
(
.OHARLOTTE, N.C. 28942
~,
' HAL B. TUGKER -
Ten.sp, sown (704) gyg.4ggg
- mm - n November 8, 1984:
Mr.tHarold R. Denton,: Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation-JU.;S. Nuclear-Regulatory Commission' 1 Washington, D. C. :20555 m
4 1 Attention: Ms.. E. -' G. Adensam, Chief
' _ Licensing Branch.No. 4
.Re:.. Catawba Nuclear. Station
, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414
Dear Mh.,
Denton:
'On March 9,~1983, Duke Power Company submitted the Catawba Nuclear Station L(Unit 1) Pump and Valve Inservice Testing Program pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g).
. Revisions (to'the program were submitted on July 10, 13, 18, 23, 27 and
~
October 1, 1984..In accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii), Section D of the program-document identified certain pumps and valves which could not be tested in,c'onformance with ASME Code requirements.. In accordance with
~.10 CFR 51.41,.'the following is Duke Power's evaluation of environmental impacts of the requested relief.
Identification of Proposed Action The requested relief would' relieve Duke. Power from meeting certain require-
.ments of the ASME Code,Section XI Subsections.1WV and IWP. The specific relief. requests are identified in Section D of the Catawba Nuclear Station
'(Unit'1) Pump and Valve Inservice Testing Program. Alternative tests and/or test frequencies have also been identified as a part of 'each relief
~
request.
Need'for the Proposed Action
- Testing of.the identified pumps and valves at the ASME Code required frequencies could place the unit in a mode of operation that could lead to equipment damage or unit shutdown, or the testing simply cannot be done due tolthe plant design. Testing of these pumps and valves to the proposed alternative frequencies or methods will adequately ensure the 1
c operability of the equipment.
Imposition of the.ASME Code requirements awould result in hardships or unusual difficulties without'a compensating increase in the leve1 Eof quality or. safety.;
I
' Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Actions As previously stated, testing of these pumps and valves at the proposed alternative test frequencies or methods will adequately ensure the operability.of~the equipment, therefore the requested relief would not 8411150125 841108 PDR ADOCM 05000413 P
- g YO
s-JMr..Har 1d'R. Denton, DirJctor November'8,:1984
~Page Two
- affect the risk of facility accidents. Conversely.. testing of some of the
- affected pumps.and valves under the conditions required by the ASME Code
'tcouldEresult in. unit trips, damage to equipment and an increase in the risk of facilityiaccidents.. Thus it.can be concluded that post-accident radiological releases.will not be greater'.than'previously determined nor
-does the; proposed relief otherwise adversely affect radiological plant effluents, nor any significant occupational exposure. Likewise, the relief does.not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental ~ impact..
Conclusion It'is our conclusion that there are no adverse radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the requested exemption.
Very truly yours, d
Hal B.. Tucker ROS: sib cc:.Mr. James:P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IIL
.101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr.' Jesse L.- Riley
' Carolina Environmental Study Group 854 Henley Place Charlotte, North Carolina 28207
~
Robert Guild, Esq.
P.,0. Box 12097 Charleston. South Carolina 29412 Palmetto A11'ance i
'2135 Devine Street.
. Columbia, South Carolina 29205 NRC Resident Inspector Catawba Naclear Station i