ML20112H940
| ML20112H940 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 06/12/1996 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20112H938 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9606180741 | |
| Download: ML20112H940 (5) | |
Text
__
fm v
.Ti k
UNITED STATES f
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20M1
\\.***/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 148 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-35 AND AMENDMENT NO. 142 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-52 DUKE POWER COMPANY. ET AL.
CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-413 AND 50-414
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated July 18 1994, as supplemented by letters dated October 9, 1995 and June 6, 1996, Duke Power Company (DPC), the licensee, submitted a request for changes to the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications (TS).
The requested changes would split the comb'ined Unit 1 and Unit 2 TS into separate Unit 1 and Unit 2 TS volumes.
The October 9, 1995 and June 6, 1996, letters provided clarifying information that did not change the scope of the July 18, 1994, application and the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination (59 FR 47166, September 14, 1994).
j Each specification in the current combined TS applies both to Unit 1 and Unit 2.
Where there are unit-specific differences between the requirements or parameters for Unit 1 and Unit 2, the differences are noted in the current TS either in the text of the specification, in the figure captions, or in the notations and footnotes to the tables.
In the proposed separate TS volumes for Unit I and Unit 2, the specifications are identical where there are no unit-specific differences.
Where there are differences, the requirements and parameters for Unit 1 and Unit 2 are specified in the individual volumes.
Separating the TS into volumes for Unit I and Unit 2 results in changes brought about by the actual splitting of the TS.
These changes are considered to be administrative.
Further, in making these changes, the licensee has also requested other editorial or administrative changes that include:
(a) incorporating license amendments that have been previously approved subsequent to the July 18, 1994, application; (b) renumbering pages and deleting pages that were intentionally left blank; (c) deleting outdated footnotes; and (d) separating tables and figures specific to each unit and associated notations.
(ifo6/V o 7 N
1
. 2.0 EVALUATION 2.1 Administrative Chanaes Specific to splitting TS into separate volumes -
There are changes that result solely from splitting the existing TS into separate Unit I and Unit 2 volumes. Where there are unit-specific differences in operating requirements and parameters, they are reflected in the text, figures, and tables of the individual TS volumes.
Example:
TS 2.1.1, Reactor Core, on current page 2-1 references two separate figures for Unit I and Unit 2 for " Reactor Core Safety Limits - Four Loops in Operation." The figures will be relocated to the unit-specific volumes.
.The actual figures found in the current combined volume are denoted as Figure 2.1-la for Unit I and Figure 2.1-lb for Unit 2.
The figures will be renumbered and shown as Figure 2.1-1 for each unit with the " Unit 1 (or 2)
Only" reference.at the top of each figure removed.
The resulting text for the proposed technical specification split on proposed page 2-1 will be corrected to read as follows in each volume for Unit I and Unit 2:
2.1.1 The combination of THERMAL POWER, pressurizer pressure, and the highest operating loop coolant temperature (Tm) shall not exceed the limits shown in Figure 2.1-1 for four loop operation.
This type of change that-is associated with the TS split is administrative in nature and is found to be acceptable.
Updating the licensee's July 18, 1994, application -
Subsequent to the licensee's July 18, 1994, application the staff has issued a number of amendments.
For example, on May 13, 1996, Amendments 144 (for Unit
- 1) and 138 (for Unit 2) revises the TS to specify that the containment Type A leak testing will follow Option B of the revised Ap)endix J of 10 CFR 50. The current action will thus. incorporate verbatim all t1e changes conveyed by amendments issued after July 18, 1994, and before the date of this safety evaluation.._This type of change is administrative in nature and is acceptable.
Deleting outdated footnotes -
Some requirements were included for one-time or time-dependent actions, such as during a specific fuel cycle.
For example, page 3/4 7-42 has'a footnote that says:
- The CHANNEL CALIBRATION requirement of this surveillance need not be performed for level transmitter 1 CFLT5632 until prior to entering H0T STANDBY following the Unit 1 first refueling.
J
. Unit I refueling, and therefore its second fuel cycle, occurred years ago, and this footnote is obsolete.
This deletion of obsolete footnotes is administrative in nature and is acceptable.
2.2 Editorial Chanaes Renumbering of pages -
Certain TS pages were intentionally left blank, TS sections were vacated by previous amendments, and/or page numbers had an "a,"
"b," or "c" designation.
For example, Amendment Nos. 132/126 were issued on July 24, 1995, to relocate the requirements for the seismic and meteorological instrumentation and loose parts detection system to the Selected Licensee Commitment (SLC) Manual (Chapter 16 of the FSAR) led to vacated sections on pages B 3/4 3-4 and B 3/4 3-5.
The renumbering of pages in the separate TS is editorial in nature and is acceptable.
Rewording -
Certain sections of the TS were revised to make wording / explanations consistent and/or clearer throughout the text and to correct typographical errors.
For example, TS 3.6.4.3, Hydrogen Mitigation System, on current page 3/4 6-40 reads:
ACTION:
With one train of the Hydrogen Mitigation System inoperable, restore the inoperable system to OPERABLE status within 7 days or increase the surveillance interval from of Specification 4.6.3.a from 92 days to 7 days on the OPERABLE train until the inoperable train is returned to OPERABLE status.
The phrase " increase the surveillance interval... from 92 days to 7 days" is grammatically incorrect.
The phrase "from 92 days to 7 days" establishes an increase in the frequency of the surveillance, i.e. a decrease in the interval of the surveillance.
Since this is a decrease in the interval of the surveillance, this specification is edited for clarity to appear in both unit-specific volumes as follows:
i i
1
.s i
l ACTION:
With one train of the Hydrogen Mitigation System inoperable, restore the inoperable system to OPERABLE status within 7 days or decrease the surveillance interval of Specification 4.6.3.a from 92 days to 7 days on the OPERABLE train until the inoperable train is returned to OPERABLE status.
This type of change is editorial in nature and is acceptable.
The licensee provided a summary of all proposed changes to the TS and associated Bases in both the July 18, 1994, and October 9,1995, submittals.
The summary included editorial and administrative changes, and changes due to TS amendments issued since the original amendment request dated July 18, 1994.
For the reasons stated above, the staff finds the TS changes described in the July 18, 1994, and October 9, 1995, submittals, acceptable.
The corresponding separation of the TS into individual volumes for Unit I and Unit 2 is therefore also acceptable.
1
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
i i
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the South Carolina State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments.
The State i
official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments change requirements with respect to installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, l
of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no j
significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation l
exposure. The staff has previously issued a proposed finding that the l
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (59 FR 47166, September 14, 1994).
Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical l
exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no i
environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in l
connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The staff focussed its review principally on the changes described in the licensee's July 18, 1994 and October 9, 1995, submittals. As discussed above, l
the staff finds these changes acceptable.
The licensee has not explicitly proposed, nor has the staff explicitly accepted, any new technical changes to the TS.
The staff recognizes that since the entire combined TS is to be replaced iy two completely retyped separate documents, the likelihood of inadvertent errors that bypassed the staff's review exists. All such inadvertent errors will have to be corrected by future amendments.
l
l b t The staff has 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, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
l Principal Contributor: Stanley. S. Kirslis Date:
June 12,1996 l
I h
l t
i 1
- -,