ML20065L469
| ML20065L469 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 11/29/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20065L467 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9012070071 | |
| Download: ML20065L469 (3) | |
Text
__
O
>R Riog
~
ff I%
UNITED STATES y
- t f,g NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
.j WASHING TON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATIOl1 BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 80 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-35 AND AMENDMENT NO. 74 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-52 DUKE POWER COMPANY, ET AL.
l CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET HOS. 50-413 AND 50-414
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated October 28, 1987, and supplemented October 30 and November 10, 1989, July 13 and September 25, 1990, Duke Power Company, et al. (the licensee),
proposed changes to Catawba Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications (TSs) to correct a typographical error, provide additional clarification, and improve consistency.
2.0 EVALUATION The NRC staff has reviewed the above listed submittals and finds that many of the changes proposed by the licensee are administrative in that they correct a typographical error, provide additional clarification or improve consistency.
As identified below, Items 4, 5, 6, 8, and 11 are being handled separately.
The following paragraphs provide descriptions and evaluations for the proposed changes to the current Catawba Units 1 and 2 TSs.
1.
Rey bion to index pages to reflect previously issued TS amendments.
are editorial corrections.
These 2.
Revision to Item 5.d. in TS Table 3.3-3 to clarify the total number of Engineered Safety Features Actuation System (ESFAS) channels located in each doghouse structure, as well as the number of channels required to trip and the minimum number of operable channels.
the as-built design.
This is an administrative correction to reflect-3.
Revision to Item 6.e. in TS Table 3.3-3 to specify the number of ESFAS channels required to trip the turbine.
reflect the as-built design.
This is an administrative correction to j
yyOf$ 5)
[
P
~ ~ ~ - ~ ~
~~
o 2-4._ Revision to the 'TS 3.4.4 Action Statement is being handled separately.
5.
Revision to TS 3.7.1.5 to replace the word " demonstrate" with the worc
" verify" is being handled separately.
6.
Revision to TS 4.7.1.2.2 to add the word " path".is being handled separately.
7.
Revision to TS 4.7.12 to indicate the groundwater monitor wells encircle both Unit 1.and. Unit 2 Reactor and Auxiliary. Buildings.
This is an administrative. correction to reflect the as-built design.
8.
Revision to TS 4.8.1.1.2a. to clarify the meaning of " STAGGERED. TEST BASIS" is being-handled separately.
9.. Revision to TS 4.8.1.1.29 13 to clarify the requirements of the time delay.
The intent of the surveillance continues to be met when deleting the word
" minimum".
This is an editorial change.
- 10.. Revision to include updated Figures 5.1-1, 5.1-3 and 5.1-4 to reflect site configuration._ This is an administrative change.
11.
Revision to TS 6.2.2f. to reflect the shift rotation ard work hours at
. Catawba'is being handled separately.
12.- Revision to TSs:6.2.3.1 and TS 6.2.3.4 were made by Amendments 77 and 71 for Units 1.and 2, respectively.
13.
Revision to TS 6.4.1 to. identify the new position of Manager, Station Training Services.
This is.an editcrial change.
14.
Revision.to TS 6.4.1 to indicate that the Catawba Safety Review Group _ is not directly involved in the Operating. Experience Program. This is an administrative change.
-15.: Revision to TS 6.4.1 to correct a printing error. This is a typographical correction.-
16.
Revision to TSs 6.5.1.6, 6.5.1.8 and 6.5.1.9 to make the wording consistent with that contained in TSs 6.5.1.10 and 6.5.1.12.
Tb's is an editorial change.
17.- Revision to TSs 6.5.2.10a., b., and c.-to identify the new organization and new title'.for an Executive Vice President. This is'an editorial change.
- 18. ' Revision to TS-6.9.1, 6.9.1.8, 6.9.1.9, and '. 9.2.to-reflect the change -
to 10 CFR 50.4 concerning communications wi'4 NRC. This is an administrative change.
~
~
.w The staff finds that the prcposed changes, with the exception of Items 4, 5, 6, 8 and 11 to the Catewba Units 1 and 2 TSs, are administrative in that the objectives of the changes are to eliminate typographical errors, make editorial changes, improve consistency or change nomenclature.
The changes do not affect safety and are, therefore, acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CCNSIDERATION These amendments involve changes in requirements with respect to the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes in surveillance requirements. The amendments also relate to changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements. The staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amcunts, and no significant change-in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no signif-icant increase in individual or cumulative occupational exposure.
The Commission's staff has previously issued a finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such findirg. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibilit categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) and (10)y criteria for 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.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission's propostd determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration was published in the Federal Register (54FR'47601)onNovember 15, 1989. The November 10, 1989,-July 13 and September 25, 1990, submittals clarified and corrected certain aspects of the original request. Therefore, the substance of the changes noticed in the
, Federal Register and the proposed no significant hazards determination were not affected. The Commission 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 conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of these amendments will not.be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
K. Jabbour, PDII-3/DRP-l/II Dated:
November 29,-1990 L
.