ML20116H993

Application for Amend to License NPF-35,changing Tech Spec Requirements So Testing of Turbine Generator Control Valves Need Only Be Conducted on Monthly Basis.Fee Paid

ML20116H993
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	04/29/1985
From:	Tucker H DUKE POWER CO.
To:	Adensam E, Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20116H995	List: ML20116H993 ML20116J009
References
NUDOCS 8505020422
Download: ML20116H993 (5)

Text

-

DUKE POWER GOMPANY P.O. ISOX 33189 CHARLOTTE, N.C. 28242 HAL B. TUCKER Tetrenoxx TK E PDFBIDent (704)373-4331 April 29,1985 Mr. Harold R. Denton, 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: Catawba Nuclear Station Docket No. 50-413 Technical Specifications Amendment

Dear Mr. Denton:

This letter contains a proposed amendment to the Technical Specifications for Facility Operating License No. NPF-35 for Catawba Unit 1. The attach-ment contains the proposed change and a discussion of the justification and safety analysis. The analysis is included pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91 and it has been concluded that the proposed amendment does not involve significant hazards considerations. It is also requested that these changes be incorporated into the proposed Catawba Units 1 and 2 combined Technical Specifications which were transmitted by my letter of March 15,

,1985.

This request involves one amendment request to Catawba's Technical Specifications. Accordingly, pursuant to 10 CFR 170.21 a check for

$150.00 is enclosed.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91 (b) (1) the appropriate South Carolina State Officials are being provided a copy of this amendment request.

Very truly yours, b

d - _

Hal B. Tucker RWO: sib Attachment g e20422 esO42, 3 9

p ADOCK 05000413 \

PDR t., 00 4 AAe 9 #

9?  ;

Mr. Harold R. Denton, Dirsctor April 29, 1985 Page Two ec: Dr. J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region 111 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 NRC Resident Inspector Catawba Nuclear Station Mr. Heyward G. Shealy, Chief l Bureau of Radiological Health South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street

' Columbus, South Carolina 29201 Mr. Jesse L. Riley Carolina Environmental Study Group 854 Henley Place Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 Palmetto Alliance 2135 Devine Street Columbia, South Carolina 29205 Robert Guild, Esq. .

P. O. Box'12097 l Charleston, South Carolina 29412

~ ,

L-:.

7 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director April 29, 1985 Page Three HAL B. TUCKER, being duly 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-35; and that all statements and matters set forth therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge.

IIal B. Tucker, Vice President Subscribed and sworn to before me this 29th day of April,1985.

Ya ~

Notary Public '

-My Commission' Expires:

September 20, 1989

Proposed Amendment to Catawba Unit i Technical Specification 4.3.4.2 Concerning the Turbine Overspeed Protection System

JUSTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION The proposed amendment is a result of the receipt of the General Electric Company, May 22, 1984 Technical Information Letter No. 969 " Periodic Turbine Steam Valve Test - Nuclear Units" (attached). GE has determined that testing of the Turbine Generators control valves need only be done on a monthly basis. Their conclusions are drawn from 24 years of operating experience and many-design improvements.

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 Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of standards of no significant hazards determination by providing certain examples (48 FR 14870). One of the examples of actions likely to involve no significant hazards considerations is a change which either may result in some increase to the probability or consequences of a previously-analyzed accident or may reduce in some way a safety margin, but where the results of the change are clearly within all acceptable criteria with resepect to the system or component specified

~

in the Standard Review Plan:... This proposed change may result in the overall probability of a hypothetical turbine missile increasing a negligible amount by increasing the test interval for the control valves. However, GE has determined that the increased surveillance interval is acceptable.

Based upon the above analysis, the proposed amendment is determined to involve no significant hazard considerations.