ML20113G200
| ML20113G200 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 09/20/1996 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20113G196 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9609260243 | |
| Download: ML20113G200 (2) | |
Text
!
I v
amu g
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20556-0001
.....,o SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0.152 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-35 AND AMENDMENT NO. 144 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-52 DUKE POWER COMPANY. ET AL.
CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NO. 50-413 AND 50-414
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated November 15, 1995, Duke Power Company (the licensee) proposed amendments to modify the Technical Specifications (TSs) for the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2.
Specifically, the licensee requested changes to modify the Limiting condition for Operation (LCO) for TS 3/4.7.5 " Standby Nuclear Service Water Pond." The standby nuclear service water pond (SNSWP) serves as the ultimate heat sink (VHS), which is the emergency source of water to the nuclear service water system (NSWS) for both Catawba units, The normal source of water to the NSWS is Lake Wylie, which is not seismically qualified.
The proposed changes would raise the minimum water level of the SNSWP by 1 foot (from elevation 570 feet to 571 feet). The requested increase in water level was determined to be necessary by the licensee after a survey determined that the available pond inventory was less than originally assumed in analyses.
2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION The staff originally evaluated and found acceptable the design and performance of the SNSWP in Section 9.2.5 of the Catawba Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-0954, February 1983).
The licensee stated that the reduced available SNSWP inventory is a result of two factors. The first factor is siltation that has occurred in the pond.
The second factor is a result of the licensee's inability to completely reproduce the field methods used in the earlier surveys for underwater contours, and the interpolation and judgement that was required when constructing contour lines. The licensee's latest survey determined that a 1-foot increase in the pond water level would restore the available pond j
inventory to at least that which was assumed in the original analyses.
9609260243 960920 PDR ADOCK 05000413 P
PDR l
V
. The proposed TS change is conservative in that it will result in a greater minimum volume of water available than required by the current TS level. The proposed change is necessary to ensure the volume of water in the SNSWP will be consistent with the assumptions used in the licensee's most recent post-accident transient heat analysis for the pond.
)
Based on its evaluation the staff has concluded that the proposed change to TS 3/4.7.5 is conservative because it results in a larger available volume of water than the current TS and is necessary to make the TS consistent with the l
existing transient heat analysis for the pond.
The staff, therefore, concludes that the proposed change is acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the South Carolina State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments.
The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments change requirements with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards censideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (December 20, 1995, 60 FR 65676).
Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
5.0 CONCLUSION
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 amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: William T. LeFave Date:
September 20, 1996 e