ML20216C736
| ML20216C736 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 06/19/1987 |
| From: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20216C741 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-83-28, GL-85-09, GL-85-9, TAC-65751, TAC-65752, NUDOCS 8706300348 | |
| Download: ML20216C736 (4) | |
Text
'E
.p ;
i
, % ~,pe..\\,4)I,
'~
y
- ) !
I
-DUKE POWER GOMPANY q
P.O. IDX 33189 -
' CHARLOTTE, N,0, 28242 j
4 IIAL H. TUGKER Tzternows (704)373 4531 vus pasmswwt >
,j
' frUC&EAN PRODU(7TSOM J June 19,1 1987 q
a..
'.U.- S.; Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk-tWashingten, D. C. 20555
- Re t Catawba Nuclear-Station,' Units 1 and 2 3
< Docket Hos. 50-413iand 50-414 o
Technical Specification Amendment Generic'L'tter 85-09 e
f Gentlemen:
.This letter contains a proposed amendment.to the' Technical Specifications for
> Facility Operating License Nos.; NPF-35 and NPF-52 for Catawba Units.1 and 2.
The attachment request involves the addition of. Technical Specification requirements.
tfor the undervoltage andLshunt trip attachments to the Reactor Trip Breakers and.
Y
.for the Bypass Trip Breakers-(BTEs). Duke continues to believe that BTBs:
isurveillance need not'be included-in Technical Specifications. The only' apparent reason for inclusion of BTBs surveillance in the' Technical Specifications is to provida.added assurance that maintenance is performed on the breakers;'no Action.
~
1
' Statements.or Limiting Conditions for Operationfwere proposed'in Generic Letter-
'85-09.t The'use;of Technical Specifications' solely to require surveillance is' i,
contrary to industry efforts to optimize the content of Technical Specifications.
.However, Tin the interest of resolving' the< outstanding items of Generic Letters j
~y 83-28 and 85-09,' Duke: agrees to include BTBs.in the Technical Specifications.
R
.-[t g
'The attachment cont,ains the' proposed change and a' discussion of.the justification
.andtcafaey. analysis.. The' analysis-is1 included pursuant"to 10 CFR 50.91'andLit has.
~
been concluded.that the proposed amendment'does not' involve'significant hazards' considerations.-
This involves one amendment request to Catawba's' Technical' Specificat' ions.
'A'ecordingly, pursuant to 10 CFR 170.21 a check for $150.00 is enclosed.-
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91 (b) (1) the appropriate South Carolina State Official.is
.being prov1ded a copy of this amendment request.
=
<Very truly yours, i
t dg
/
f I
-Hal B. Tucker' f
RWO/75/shn
\\
L.
)
N, Attachment
,8706300340 B70619 P
y I) 4 g/afd OO 43 ADOCK' O
3
/
g ge#
1U. ! S. Nucissr Rsguictory. Comission' June'19,.1987 TPage Two.
xc:
Dr. J.~ Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator
]
U.-S.sNuclear Regulatory Commission
)
Region II-101.Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. Heyward Shealy, Chief
. Bureau of Radiological Health South Carolina Department of Health &
' Environmental' Control 2 600 - Bull - Stree t
[
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
'American. Nuclear-Insurers c/o Dottie Sherman, ANI. Library The Exchange,' Suite'245 1
270-Farmington Avenue Farmington, CT -060,32.
.i M&M Nuclear Consultants.
l 1221 Avenue of the Americas i
.l cINPO Records Center Suite 1500 1100 Circle 75. Parkway I
Atlanta, Georgia 30339 Mr. P. K. Van Doorn
.h1C Resident Inspector
~
Catawba Nuclear Station I
i f
L l
i f:
i g
-Y
'U. S.-Nuc1str Regulatory C:mmission b',
-June 19,-1987 Page Four HAL B. TUCKER, being duly sworn, states that he is Vice President of Duke Power Company; that he is. authorized on the part of said Company to sign and' file with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission this revision to the Catawba Nuclear Station Technical Specifications, Appendix A to License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52; and that all statements and matters set forth therein are true and correct to the best of
'his knowledge.
/$
'.rs Hal B. Tucker, Vice President j
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19th day of June, 1987.
AJ 0e J ra Nbsdtf Public V'
'/
l L. E l
My Commission Expires:
l y
sOTARy s
A Ya /> l$f9 I
p&sc 3Wh
[
m--
3 g CO e,.. o,
ne i
i i
SAFETY ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATIONS The proposed changes were initiated by the NRC Staff in Generic Letter 85-09.
The 1
changes are expected to provide added assurance that the Reactor Trip Bypass Breakers (BTBs) will operate as expected, by assuring that maintenance and testing are performed regularly.
In a practical sense, no effect will be created by this
)
amendment because the testing and maintenance are currently being performed.
No safety concerns are raised by this amendment, because the amendment formalizes additional test requirements with the goal of improving safety.
j l
i The proposed change to Table 3.3-1, item 19 adds ACTION Statement 12 to the Reactor
}
Trip Breakers. ACTION 12 is verbatim from Generic Letter 85-09 with the additional
]
clarification of ACTION requirements when a breaker is bypassed.
Item 21 - Reactor
\\
i Trip Bypass Breakers, has been added to maintain consistency throughout the Reactor Trip System tables. ACTION 13 for item 21 calls for restoring the bypass breaker to OPERABLE status prior to placing it in service.
No further requirements are necessary for item 21.
The proposed change to Table 4.3-1, item 1 is taken directly from the guidance provided in the Generic Letter.
Item 21 is also from the Generic Letter with the addition of the applicability of Table Notation (7) to the monthly TRIP ACTUATING DEVICE OPERATIONAL TEST.
This note was added to ensure that the proper testing scheme is clearly identified for item 21.
Table Notation (15) was also modified to show that required testing is to be performed on a STAGGERED TEST BASIS. Table Notation (15) is adopted directly from the Generic Letter.
This amendment does not involve a Significant Hazards Consideration as determined using the criteria of 10 CFR 50.92.
The proposed amendment will not increase the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated in the FSAR, or create the possibility of any new accident not previously evaluated. No hardware or procedure changes are being made, so no accident analysis or safety margin will be affected, j
The commission provided examples of proposed amendments that are considered not likely to involve Significant Hazards Considerations (see 48 FR 14870). This proposed amendment is similar to example (ii), a change that constitutes an additional limitation, restriction or control not presently included in the technical specifications:
for example, a more stringent surveillance requirement.
l i