ML20237C046
| ML20237C046 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 12/11/1987 |
| From: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8712180085 | |
| Download: ML20237C046 (4) | |
Text
-
i
-DUKE POWER GOMPANY P.O. Box 33180 oHARLOTTE. N.o. 28242 HALU. TUCKER TELEPHONE vua russionwr (704)073-4531 wwuam emonvorms December 11, 1987 U. S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20S55
Subject:
Citawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414 Technical Specification Amendment Steam Generator'PORVs License Conditions.16 (Unit 1) and.10 (Unit 2) (SGTR)
Dear Sir:
This letter contains a revision to the Justification and No Significant Hazards Consideration contained in the December 4, 1987 proposed amendmerit to the Technical Specifications for Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52' for Catawba Units 1 and 2.
This proposal was in response to License Conditions 16 (Unit 1) and 10 (Unit'2) concerning the Steam Generator Tube Rupture Accident analysis.
This revision clarifies a previous statement concerning Technical Specification controls which are currently in place for the Steam Generator PORVs.
This proposal' involves a supplement to an amendment request to Catawba's Technical Specifications, therefore no license fee is required.
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 b
Hal'B. Tucker RWO/1094/sbn 2180 7
l 3
Attachments k
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission December 11, 1987.
Page.Two xc:
Dr. J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator U.-S. Nuclear 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 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 American Nuclear Insurers c/o Dottio Sherman, ANI Library The Exchange, Suite 245 270 Farmington Avenue Farmington, CT 06032
.M&M Nuclear Consultants 3221 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020 INPO Records Center Suite 1500 1100 circle'75 Parkway Atlanta, Georgia 30339 Mr. P. K. Van Doorn NRC Resident Inspector Catawba Nuclear Station i
L.
4 JUSTIFICATION AND DISCUSSION OF NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION This amendment is in response to License Conditions 16 (Unit 1) and 10 (Unit 2) concerning the Steam Generator Tube Rupture analysis. The proposed amendment would add Action Statements, Surveillance Requirements and Bases to the Technical Specifications for the steam generator (S/G) power-operated relief valves (PORVs).
The proposed Technical Specification Limiting conditions for Operations, Action Statements and Surveillance will require that the safety grade gas (nitrogen) supply be operable for'each of the operable S/G PORVs.
Surveillance Requirements have been proposed to verify the availability of the nitrogen supply and to verify that the S/G PORVs are capable of being opened and closed via their remote manual controls.
The S/G pORVs are already required to be operable per Technical Specification 3/4.6.3 in order to satisfy containment isolation requirements. Therefore, appropriate controls to maintain these valves operable for containment isolation purposes are already in place.
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 involve an increase in the probability or consequences of any previously evaluated accident. The probability or consequences of an accident is not increased because these changes involve addition of requirements for components required to mitigate the consequences of previously evaluated accidents.
This Technical Specification amendment will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated since the amendment will be adding additional Technical Specification requirements for components already in place.
No change in design and no new mode of operation is introduced by this change.
This amendment request does not involve any reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed changes would add restrictions to equipment already in place and thus would potentially increase the margin of safety.
In publishing the interim final rule for new procedures for providing public notice concerning issuance of amendments to operating licenses, the Commission provided several examples of license amendments which would not involve significant hazards considerations (48 FR 14870). One of the examples listed was 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." This amendment is similar to example (ii).
o JUSTIFICATION AND DISCUSSION OF NO SIGNIFICANT llAZARDS CONSIDERATION (Cont.'d) l For the above stated reasons, it is concluded that the proposed amendment does j
not involve significant hazards considerations.
l 1
1 i
3 J