ML20153D683
| ML20153D683 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 02/12/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20153D633 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8602240215 | |
| Download: ML20153D683 (3) | |
Text
.-
[
[g.
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-o
- g p.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20065
\\,,../
FEB 12L1986 l_
SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT.
3; RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-35 i
CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1 l
DUKE POWER COMPANY-i NORTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION SALUDA RIVER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC.
I.
Introduction r
By letter dated April 29, 1985, Duke Power Company requested a license amendment to revise surveillance requirement 4.3.4.2 in the Technical Specifications (TS) for Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 1, from a turbine control valve testing fre-
.1 quency of once in seven days to at least once in 31 days. The testing frequency for the other turbine valves remains at seven days.
a l
t II. Evaluation The NRC staff currently requires weekly testing of all--turbine valves as stated in Standard Review Plan Section 10.2 " Steam Turbines"._ The staff position was i
established after extensive discussions with major steam turbine manufacturers and is based largely on engineering judgement and the reconsnendations of the manu.facturers.
i General Electric in Technical Information' Letter No. 969, dated May 22, 1984,-
stated that operating experience on inservice nuclear turbine steam valves shows that operability and reliability will not be significantly affected by increas--
~
)
ing the periodic control valve testing interval from the present weekly to a i
much longer interval. They have also concluded that reduced turbine valve testing on this type of turbine has little or no effect on the probability of turbine missile generation.
In General Electric's judgement, lack 'of a significant number of valve' failures and good operating experience provide 7
a reasonable basis to increase the periodic test interval for the turbine control valves.
The staff has evaluated the information submitted by Duke in the April 29, 1985, letter and General Electric's information presented in Technical Information Letter No. 969. Considering the information presented by Duke an& General Electr_ic, and the staff's original basis for the TS, ~ the staff. concludes that t
the surveillance interval for periodic turbine control' valve testing can-be increased for the Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 1, from once in seven days to l
j at least once in 31 days without significantly affecting the capability of the turbine control valves to function on demand, and is acceptable.
i
)
e602240215 860212 i
PDR ADOCK 05000413
{
p
-PDR r.
i
,..-~.u,_,_,...,..-.,
,.n,.-,.,-,u,,~-,.,,...-..-,_.-.-
m -.
+
III. Environmental Consideration The amendment involves a change in the use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes in surveillance re-quirements. The staff has determined that the' amendment involves no significant -
increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in indi-vidual or cumulative occupational exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consider-ation, and there have been no public_ comments on such finding. Accordingly, the~
amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact state-ment or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
IV. Conclusion The Comission made.a proposed determination that the amendment involves no #
significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register on November 20, 1985 (50 FR 47860) and consulted with the state of South Carolina. No public coments were received, and the state of South Carolina did not have any comments.
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety _of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be cenducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors: Kahtan Jabbour, PWR Project Directorate #4 Division of PWR Licensing-A John Thompson, PWR Project Directorate #4 Division of PWR Licensing-A R. Giardina, Plant Systems Branch Division of PWR Licensing-A J. Tsao, Engineering Branch Division of BWR Licensing Dated: February 12, 1986 6
DISTRIBUTION:
Amendment No. 3 to NPF-35 Dated February 12, 1986 Docket File '
NRC PDR Local PDR PRC System NSIC PWR#4 Rdg egm M)uncan KJabbour HThompson OELD LHarmon EJordan BGrimes JPartlow TBarnhart (4)
WJones ACRS (10)
. LFM8 JTsao RGiardina O
l i
1
-