ML20138R913
| ML20138R913 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 11/01/1985 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138R909 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8511190242 | |
| Download: ML20138R913 (3) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _ _ _.
N UNITED STATES og E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
y j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-35 CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1 DUKE POWER COMPANY NORTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION SALUDA RIVER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
7 INTRODUCTION By letter dated October 18, 1985, Duke Power Company requested an emergency change to Technical Specification 3.4.6.2 for Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 1, with respect to the reactor coolant system (RCS) leakage. The requested amendment is needed because of 1.3 GPM unidentified leakage from the RCS which was first identified on October 18, 1985. The Technical Specification Action Statement was entered at 1448 hours0.0168 days <br />0.402 hours <br />0.00239 weeks <br />5.50964e-4 months <br />. The request was to extend by 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, on a one time basis, the time before which the facility would have to be placed in the cold shutdown condition with the RCS unidentified leakage rate greater than 1 GPM but less than 5 GPM.
II.
EVALUATION The requested emergency change to Technical Specification 3.4.6.2 is to extend, by 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, on a one time basis, the time before which the facility must be placed in cold shutdown with the unidentified leakage greater than 1 GPM but less than 5 GPM. The change is needed because, with this low rate of leakage, it is difficult to identify the source of leakage.
Reducing the pressure and temperature in accordance with the Action State-ment of Technical Specification 3.4.6.2 (i.e., to be in cold shutdown) will make it even more difficult to detect the leak. The extension would provide increased opportunity for leakage paths to be identified for correction and avoid a delay in startup. The safety significance of such operation is negligible in view of the low leak rate and the brief e.xtension requested.
Since the leakage is not extensive and exceeds the Tecnnical Specification limit by only a small amount, it poses no challenge to the ability of the reactor coolant makeup system to maintain system water inventory. Activity levels within the containment have remained within acceptable limits and do not indicate any gross leakage of~ reactor coolant. All other Technical Specifications are being met and the plant is in a stable condition. The safety margins contained in the LOCA analysis described in the FSAR are unaffected by this level of leakage and no new accident scenarios are created. The staff finds that the extension, hy 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, of the time allowed for Catawba Unit I to remain in Modes 3 and 4, is appropriate considering the safety significance of such operation and the specification, as revised is acceptable.
Further, if there should be any substantial increase in leakage, greater than 5 GPM, prompt shutdown would be required.
8511190242 851101 DR ADOCK 05000413 p
III. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION The amendment involves a change in use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has determined that the amendment involves 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 made a final no significant hazards consideration finding with respect to the amendment. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Section 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental J
assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
IV.
FINAL NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION The State was informed by telephone on October 22, 1985, of the staff's no significant hazards consideration determination. The State contact had no coninents on the determination. The Consnission has provided certain examples (48 FR 14870) of actions likely to involve no significant hazards considera-tions. The licensees' request in this case does not match any of those examples. However, based on the review of the licensees' submittal as described herein, the staff has made a final detemination that the licensees' amendment request does not involve a significant hazards con-sideration since operation of Catawba Unit I with the requested change would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or con-sequences of an accident previously analyzed since the duration of the change is for a 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> period only and the RCS leakage exceeds the Tech-nical Specification limit by a ver would require prompt shutdown, (2)y small amouat; leakage exceeding 5 GPM create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident fram any accident previously analyzed since the change does not allow any changes from the design basis envelopes for any of the accidents previously analyzed, and (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because of the reasons cited above for (1) and (2) and since the plant will be subcritical during the limited time that the change is in effect.
l V.
FINDINGS OF EMERGENCY WARRANTING AN AMENDMENT WITHOUT NOTICE Without this amendment, the licensee will be required to have the Unit in Mode 5 (Cold Shutdown) on Sunday, October 20, 1985, and will be delayed in startup. Leakage calculations first identified this problem on October 18, 1985, and Technical Specification 3.4.6.2 Action Statement b, was entered at 1448 hours0.0168 days <br />0.402 hours <br />0.00239 weeks <br />5.50964e-4 months <br />. The licensee contacted the staff promptly after they entered the Action Statement, to discuss the licensee's proposal to amend the Technical Specification on an Emergency basis. The licensee requested the subject change to Technical Specification 3.4.6.2 Action Statement b, in its letter dated October 18, 1985. The licensee stater' in their letter
)
.,-.---------..--.-.A
~
that they could not have avoided this situation and have not delayed their application to take advantage of the Emergency License Amendment Provisions of 10 CFR 50.91.
The staff has reviewed the circumstances associated with the licensee's request and has discussed this with the NRC Resident Inspectors at Catawba Nuclear Station. The staff and the NRC Resident Inspectors agree with the licensee: (1) that failure of the NRC to take action would result in Catawba Unit 1 going to Cold Shutdown before the source of unidentified leakage was found and a delay in startup, and (2) that licensee made a timely application and adequately explained why it could not have avoided this situation. Thus, the staff has concluded that the licensee has satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR 50.91(a)(5), and a valid emergency exists.
VI.
CONCLUSION The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that 1
(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 this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors: Kahtan N. Jabbour, Licensing Branch No. 4, DL A. Singh, Auxiliary Systems Branch, DSI i
Dated: November 1, 1985 i
i l
, _ ~ _. -. _. _. -. _ _ _ _ _ _... -. - -, -. _ _ _ _