ML20012E562
| ML20012E562 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 03/27/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20012E558 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9004050406 | |
| Download: ML20012E562 (3) | |
Text
-
't (g* C8 %
,[d UNITED STATES
[
!s 3
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20665 k....*
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATIOh RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 72 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-35 f
AND AMENDMENT NO. 66 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-52 OUKE POWER COMPANY. ET AL, CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION. UNITS l'AND 2 i
00CKETS NOS. 50-413 AND 50-414
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated December 21, 1989, proposed changes to the Technical SpecificationsDukePowercomany}et'a1.(thelicen. i TSs for Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2.
The pro)osed changes remove the provision of Specifi-cation 4.0.2 that limits the com>ined time intervals for three consecutive surveillances to less than 3.25 times the specified interval. Guidance on this proposed change to the TSs was provided to all power. reactor licensees and t
applicants by Generic Letter 89-14 jted August 21, 1989.
2.04 EVALUATION Specification 4.0.2 includes the provision that allows a surveillance interval to be extended by 25 percent of the specified time interval. This extension provides flexibility for scheduling the performance of surveillances and to permit consideration of plant operating conditions that may not be suitable for conducting a surveillance at the specified time interval. Such operating 4
s conditions include transient plant operation or ongoing surveillance or mainte-nonce activities. Specification 4.0.2 further limits the allowance'for extending surveillance intervals by' requiring that the combined time interval for any three consecutive surveillances not exceed 3.25 times the specified time interval.
The purpose of this provision is to assure that surveillances are not extended repeatedly as an operational convenience to provide an overall increase in the I
surveillance interval.
Experience has shown that the 18-month surveillance interval, with the provision to extend it by 25 percent, is usually sufficient to accommodate normal variations 1
in the length of a fuel cycle. However, the NRC staff has routinely granted requests for one-time exceptions to the 3.25 limit on extending refueling surveillances because the risk to safety is low in contrast to the alternative ik of a forced shutdown to perform these surveillances. Therefore, the 3.25 limitation on extending surveillances has not been a practical limit on the use of the 25-percent allowance for extending surveillances that are performed on a refueling outage basis.
9004050406 900377 PDR ADOCK 05000414 l
p PDC l
i9 s
2 Extending surveillance intervals during plant operation can also result in a benefit to safety Then a scheduled surveillance is due at a time that is not suitable for conheting the surveillance.
This may occur when transient plant operating conditMas exist or when safety systems are out of service for maintenance or other surveillance activities.
In such cases, the benefit to safety of extending a surveillance interval would exceed any safety benefit derived by limiting the use of the 25 percent allowance to extend a surveillance.
Furthermore, there is the administrative burden ast>ciated with tracking the use of the 25 percent allowance to ensure compliance with the 3.25 limit.
In view cf these findings, the NRC staff concluded that Specification 4.0.2 should be changed to remen the 3.25 limit for all surveillances because its removal will have an overJ 1 positive effect on safety. The guidtnce provided in Generic Letter 89 14 included the following change to this specification and removes the 3.25 limit on three consecutive surveillances with the following statement:
"4.02 Each surveillance Requirement shall be performed within the specified surveillance interval with a maximum allowable extension not to exceed 25 percent of the specified surveillance interval."
In addition, the Bases of this specification were updated to reflect this change. The revised Bases continue to note that it is not the intent of the allowance for extending surveillan intervals that it be used repeatedly merely as an operational convenience to extend surveillance intervals beyond that specified.
The licensee has proposed changes to $pecification 4.0.2 that are consistent with the utdance provided in Generic Letter 89-14 as noted above. On the basis of ts review of this matter, the NRC staff finds that the above changes to the 755 for Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, are acceptable.
5.0 ENV!RONMENTAL CONSIDERATION These amendments involve changes in requirements with respect to the use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes in surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that the caendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no signi-ficant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no si radiation exposure.gnificant increase in individual or cumulative occupational The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there ' e.
been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(',;.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments, i
.~
I
3
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Comission's determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration was published in the Federal Register ($$ FR 4265) on February 7,1990. The Commission consulted with the state of South Carolina.
No public comments 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 conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations,fense and and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common de security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors: Thomas G. Dunning, OTSB/DOEA K. Jabbour, PDf!!-3/DRP.!/11 Dated:
March 27, 1990
.