ML20133L233

Application for Amend to License NPF-35,revising Tech Specs Re Diesel Generator Reliability (Generic Ltr 84-15), Administrative Controls,Electrolyte Leakage & RCS Total Flow Rate.Fee Paid

ML20133L233
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	07/31/1985
From:	Tucker H DUKE POWER CO.
To:	Adensam E, Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20133L236	List: ML20133L233 ML20133L244
References
GL-84-15, NUDOCS 8508120536
Download: ML20133L233 (6)

Text

. _ -

~

)\ $

DUKE Powen Go>mun-P.O. nox 33180 CHARLOTTE, N.C. 28242 HALD. TUCKER VM E PARetDRWT TE1.EPHONE NUCLEAR PetMH'OT10- (704) 373-4531 July 31, 1985 l

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 l Licensing Branch No. 4 Re: Catawba Nuclear Station Docket No. 50-413 Technical Specifications Amendment

Dear Mr. Denton:

This letter contains proposed amendments to the Technical Specifications for Facility Oper,ating License No. NPF-35 for Catawba Unit 1. The attach-ment contains the proposed changes and a discussion of the justification and safety analyses. The analyses are included pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91 and it has been concluded that the proposed amendments do 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 application for amendment of 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 Official is being provided a copy of this amendment request.

Very truly yours, A ke-Hal B. Tucker RWO: sib Attachments cc: Dr. J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II i

101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30.'23 eA-

/

g/att f [8

/ '

/

h /p g[$

8508120536 850731 f PDR ADOCK 05000413 p PDR

~

't ' e Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director July 31, 1985 Page Two cc: NRC Resident Inspector Catawba Nuclear Station Mr. Heyward G. Shealy, Chief Bureau of Radiological Health South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbus, South Carolina 29201 Palmetto Alliance 2135h Devine Street Columbia, South Carolina 29205 Robert Guild, Esq.

P. O. Box 12097 Charleston, South Carolina 29412 Mr. Jesse. L. Riley Carolina Environmental Study Group 854 Henley Place Charlotte, North Carolina 28207

s s Mr. R:rold R. Drnton, Director July 31, 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.

hk M Hal B. Tucker, Vice President Subscribed and sworn to before me this 31stt day of July, 1985.

is Notary Pub ic ' C My Commission Expires:

September 20, 1989 4

i l

l I

I a

Attachment 1 Proposed Amendment to Catawba Unit 1 Technical Specification 3/4.8.1 Concerning Diesel Generator Reliability (Generic Letter 84-15) 1

'o JUSTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION The proposed amendment is in regard to Mr. D. G. Eisenhut's letter of July 2, 1984 which transmitted Generic Letter 84-15. " Proposed Staff Actions to Improve and Maintain Diesel Generator Reliability". By letter dated October 16, 1984 Duke Power provided the information requested in Generic Letter 84-15 and also committed to providing revised Technical Specifications. The majority of the changes requested in Attachment I are those recommended in the Generic Letter.

The changes to the diesel fuel oil storage requirements are a result of the change in the diesel power rating from 7000 kW to 5750 kW. The proposed fuel oil storage volumes were derived from actual fuel consumption rates with the diesels operating at 5'50 kW. ANSI N195-1976, Section 5.4 was used as guidance in calculating the minimum storage requirements.

The change to Surveillance Requirement 4.8.1.1.2g and 4.8.1.1.lb is to differentiate between those surveillances which must be conducted during shutdown and those which may be performed while the plant is operating. The surveillance interval is unchanged but testing flexi-bility is increased.

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. The majority of the requested changes are those recommended in Generic Letter 84-15, which are intended to improve and maintain diesel generator reliability.

The change to the minimum fuel oil storage requirements is an admin-istrative change to reflect the lower rating of the diesels. The proposed changes were derived from accepted standards and do not result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

I

c. ._

The change which would remove the restriction of having to perform certain surveillance testing during shutdown is intended to remove an unnecessary restriction. The intent of the original specification is that a diesel generator should not be taken out of service to be tested during operation. The surveillances identified as not having to be performed only during unit shutdown would not keep the diesel from starting and carrying out its intended safety function if the diesel was needed. Therefore, there is no need to restrict the performance of these specific tests to times when the unit is shutdown.

Based on the above analyses, Duke Power Company concludes that the proposed amendment does not involve significant hazards considerations.