ML20136G549

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 157 & 149 to Licenses NPF-35 & NPF-52,respectively

ML20136G549
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	03/13/1997
From:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20136G540	List: ML20136G536 ML20136G549
References
NUDOCS 9703180090
Download: ML20136G549 (2)

Text

- -__ - - - - _ - _ - -.

gCs0 l

p UNITED STATES j

g

')

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION P

WASHINGTON, D.C. 30006 coM j

I SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT No. 157TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-35 l

AND AMENDMENT NO.149 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-52 i

DUKE POWER COMPANY. ET AL.

CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION. UNITS 1 AND 2 i

j DOCKET NOS. 50-413 AND 50-414

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated November 4,1996, Duke Power Company, et al. (the licensee),

submitted a request for changes to the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications (TS). S)ecifically, the licensee pro)osed to revise Section 4.7.13.1.c to eliminate tie requirement that the Stand)y Shutdown System (SSS) diesel generator be inspected only during shutdown of both reactors. The initial request was supplemented by a letter dated February 5, 1997, transmitting a copy of the SSS diesel generator ins)ection procedure.

The supplemental letter provided additional information t1at did not change the scope of the November 4,1996, application and the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.

2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION The Catawba SSS is a non-nuclear safety-related system that is shared between Units 1 and 2.

It is designed to mitigate the consequences of postulated fire and security-related incidents by providing the capability to maintain hot standby conditions and by controlling and monitoring vital systems from locations external to the main control room and auxiliary shutdown panels (details of the staff's review of the SSS functions and design objectives are delineated in Section 9.5.1.5, Supplement 4, of the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for Catawba, NUREG-0954, dated December 1984).

The SSS is a feature unique to Catawba and only a few other plants. Thus, in the absence of precedents or generic guidance, the technical specification requirements of the SSS for Catawba Units 1 and 2 were patterned after ty)ical requirements for emergency diesel generators at nuclear plants. Among otter things, such requirements would restrict the inspection of the SSS diesel generator to be performed only 'during shutdown."

The licensee proposed to delete the phrase "during shutdown" for the 18-month inspection from Section 4.7.13.1.c of the Unit I and 2 Technical Specifications. The inspection is done in accordance with the diesel generator manufacturer's recommendations, and is set forth in the licensee's 9703180090 970313 PDR ADOCK 05000413 G

PDR

l i

February 5, 1997, submittal.

Perfoming the inspection during shutdown would require both Units 1 and 2 to be shut down, as stated above. There is no regulatory basis or safety reason why the diesel can be inspected only when i

both units are shut down.

1 The staff notes that other than the proposed deletion of the phrase "during i

i shutdown,' the licensee proposed no other changes to other SSS requirements.

i The SSS diesel generator is not a safety-related system. There is no i

relaxation of any limiting conditions for o>eration, and no decrease in i

surveillance requirements. Additionally, tie staff has allowed some licensees i

to perform inspections and maintenance of safety-related emergency diesel i

generators during power operation. The staff, therefore, finds the licensee's i

proposed change acceptable.

3.0 STATE CONSULTATION

]

In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the South Carolina State j.

official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

The amendments change surveillance requirements. The 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 Consnission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (61 FR 64383 dated December 4,1996). Accordingly, the amendments meet the i

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 l

of the amendments, j

5.0 CONCLUSION

i 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 pro)osed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance witi the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amenoments will not be inimical to the common i

defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

Principal Contributors: Peter S. Tam j

Edward A. Connell 1

Date:

March 13, 1997 i

i l

x

.,,