ML20148F998
| ML20148F998 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 03/21/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148F996 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8803280360 | |
| Download: ML20148F998 (7) | |
Text
.
pcp Cnuq'o 8
UNITED STATES
- q NUCLEAR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION g
j WASHING TON. D. C. 20555
%,...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NIICLEAR REACTOR AEGULATION
,RELATED TO AMFNDMENT NO. 42 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-35 AND AMENDMENT NO. 35 TO FACILITY OPEDATING LICENSE NPF-57 DUKE POWED COMPANY, ET AL.
DOCKET NOS. 50 d'.3 AND 50-41a CATAWPA NUCLEAR STATION, UNI'S 1 and ?
INTRODUCTION By letter dated February 10, 1988, Duke Power Company, et al., (the licensee) croposed amendments to the operating licenses for Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and ?, which would change Technical Specificatinn (TS) Table 2.2-1, TS 3/4.2.?, and TS Figure 3.2-3 to reduce the reouired Reactor Coolant System (RCS) total finv from 396,100 qpm to 387,600 gpn.
EVAltfATION The licensee stated in its submittal recuesting the TS changes that on January 13, 1988, following Catawba Unit 1 second refueling outaoe, a precision calorimetric test was conducted as required by TS surveillance requirement 4.2.3.5.
This test resulted in the lowering of the RCS elbow tap flow coeffi-cients which are used to conve-t elbow tap pressure drops to RCS flow rates.
Upon insertion n# the new constants into the operator aid computer, indicated RCS flow decreased to between 90.9% and 100.1% of the required flow.
Because RCS flow was not consistently above 100% of the required flow, power was limited to 98% of the licensed power level of the unit in accordance with TS Ffgure l
3.2-3.
The fact that the RCS flow rate had remained constant throughout the past cycle and had returned to the same value (100.3%) following startup indicates that there is no degradation in actual DCS flow rate but that there is an amount of uncertainty attributuable to the RCS flow measurements.
I An investigation into the indicated decreased RCS flow rate is being pursued hy the licensee's and Westinghouse's personnel. One of the areas being investigater' is the possibility that changes in RCS thermal streaming is j
causing a r ange in indicated hot and cold leg DTD temperatures. The precision heat balance calorimetric test is extremely sensitive to any uncertainty in this parameter.
All applicable FSAR postulated accidents and transients that have been analyzed l
used an assuned flow which is equal to, or conservative with respect to, the prnposed TS ficw of 387,600 gpm.
I Certain Catawba FSAR Chapter 15 transients, those using the Inproved Thermal Design Procedure (ITOP), are analyzed with a nominal flow rate of 387,600 gpm as outlined in the above submittal. The appropriate flow rate assumption for j
the Catawba FSAR Chapter 15 transients not using ITOP is the proposed TS
$k P
l 2
minimum measured flow, 387,600 cpm, ad.iusted down by the flow uncertaintv, 2.2%, to gise 379,073 gpm.
Al'. of these transients are currentiv analyzed, as outlined in the above submittal, with flow rates less than this ad,iusted value and are therefore conservative.
The thermal hydraulic desigs analyses for the latest reload cores, Catawba 1 Cycle 3 and Catawba 2 Cycle 2, used the minimum measured flow of 387,600 gpm.
It can be seen frnm this and from the preceding discussion of FSAR Chapter 15 anal.vses, that all applicable steady-state and transient core thermal-hydraelic analyses have been performed with flows eaual to, or conservative with respect to, the proposed TS minimum measured flow.
PCS average temperature will remain unchanged with the change in minimum measured flow. This means that RCS initial fluid and metal stored energy will remain essentially unchanged.
Further, a constant PCS average temperature implies that the driving temperature difference for primary-to-secondary heat transfer will remain essentially unchanged.
These two parameters, initial energy content and rate of energy transfer across the steam generator tubes, are the means by which mass and energy releases influence containment response for the transients analyzed in Section 6.?.1 of the FSAR.
Because the change in RCS flow is being made with a negligible chant;e in RCS average temperature, the mass and energy release calculated in Sections 6.2.1.3 through 6.2.1.5 of the FSAR will not be affected.
On the basis of its review, the staf' finds that the revision to the TSs will not adversely impact the accident analyses documented in Sections 6.2.1 and 15 of the FSAR nor the steady-state thermal-hydraulic reload design analyses discussed in Section 4.4 of the FSAR.
Therefore, the changes to TS Table 2.?-1, TS 3/4.2.3, and TS Figure 3.2-3 are acceptable.
FNVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION These amendments involve changes to the use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to surveillance requirements.
The staff has detennined 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 exposures.
The NPC staff has made a determination that the amendments involve no sinnificant hazards consideration, and there has been no public coment on such finding.
Accordingly, the amendments meet the elig)ibility criteria for categoricalPuruant to 10 CF exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9.
environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
l l
3 CONCLUSIO.,N 1he e Trission made a prbposed determination that the amendments involve no c
significant hazards consideration which was published in the _ Federal Register (53 FR 4793) on Februarv 17, 1988. The Cornission consulted with the state of South Cutolina.
'Io public comments were received, and the state of South Carolina did not have any comments.
We have concluded, based on the consideratiors discussed above, that-(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safe +y o' the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (Oi such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuaace of these arrendments will not be inimical to the comman defense and security or to the health aad safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
K. Jabbour, PDII-3/DPPI/II Dated: March 21, 1988 i
I l
1 1
m v
r m
-c
- (2) Technical Specifications The Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A, as revised through Amendment No. 42, and the Environmental Protection Plan contained in Appendix B, both of which are attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into the license.
Duke Power Company shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications and the Environmental Protection Plan.
3.
This license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPHISSION Griginal signed-by:
Lawrence P. Crocker, Acting Director Profect Directorate II-3 Division of Reactor Proiects I/II
Attachment:
Technical Specification Changes Date of Issuance: March 21, 1988 s/
SRXP SW \\}
OFC-WF *l'lHL " ;. -
fr J a
k PD4 PDII-3/DRPI/II Woo {g/DRPI/I!
d KJabbour WHodg'es y,dd.u y 03///88 OMc p88 03/ /P8 03/3/88 I PI/IL))b A
03/}/88 N
03/
/98 t
Docket Nos.:
50-413 March 21,1988 50-414 Mr. H. B. Tucker, Vice President Nuclear Production Department Duke Power Company 422 Scuth Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28?d?
De r Mr. Tucker:
Sub,iect:
Issuance of Amendment No. 42 to Facility Operating License NPF-35 and Amendment No. 35 to Facility Operating License NPF-52-Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (TACS 67115/671161 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued the enclosed Amendment No. 42 to Facility Operating License NPF-35 and Amendment No. 35 to Facility Operating License NPF-5? for the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and ?.
These amend-ments consists of changes to the Technical Specifications in response to your application dated February 10, 1988 The amendments modify the Technical Specifications to reduce the required Ractor Coolant System total flow from 396,100 gpm to 387,600 gpm. The amend-ments are effective as of their date of issuance.
A copy of the related saf".y evaluation supporting Amendment No. 42 to Facility Operating License NPF-35 and Amendment No. 35 to Facility Operating License NPF-5? is enclosed.
Notice of issuance of amendments will be included in the Commission's next bi-weekly Federal Register notice.
Sincerely, Original signed by:
Kahtan N. Jabbour, Project Manager Project Directorate 11-3 Division of Reactor Projects I/II
Enclosures:
1.
Amendment No. 42 to NPF-35 2.
Amendment No. 35 to NPF-5?
3.
Safety Evaluation cc w/ enclosure:
See next page
/
/
N3
/ d ) gy, P D..J I-3 PD II-3 PD II-3 NRbbd KJabbour:sw Acting PD 9/M
/]/88 3 / J/88 3/J/88
2 (2) Technical Specifications The Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A, as revised through Amendment No. 35, and the Environmertal Protection Plan contained in Appendix B,.both of which are attached bereto, are hereby incorocrated intn the license. Duke Dower Company shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Soecifications and the Environmental Protection Plan.
3.
This license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance.
FOR THF NilCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Original signed by:
Lawrence P. Crocker, Acting Director Pro,4ect Directorate II-3 Division of Reactor Projects I/II
Attachment:
Technical Specification Changes Date of Issuance:
March 21, 1988
/
MRo'dhPDI.I3/DRPI/II PDI 3 n PI/II SRXPqu W I Cc-C 3c KJabbour WHodges
/!L 03/ //88r 03/"//88 03q/P8 03/ [//,
.1,,
/88 /
PDII-DRh!/I k
2:NRR Acting PD 2 /
Gj.
as 03/: 1/88 03
'/88 i
i
I
\\
Pr. H. B. Tucker Duke Power Company Catawba Nuclear Station cc:
A.V. Carr, Esq.
N)rth Carolina Electric Membership Duke Power Company Corp.
422 South Church Street 3400 Sumner Boulevard Charlotte, North Carolina 20242 P.O. Box 27306 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Rishop, Libermsn, Cook, Purcell Saluda River Electric Cooperative, and Reynolds Inc.
1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
P.O. Box 029 Washington, D. C.
20036 Laurens, South Carolina 29360 North Carolina MPA-1 Senior Resident Inspector Suite 600 Route 2, Box 179N 3100 Smoketree Ct.
York South Carolina 29745 P.O. Box 29513 Raleigh, North Carolina 276?6-0513 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulato',*y Connission, S. S. Kilborn 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Area Manager, Mid-South Area Atlanta, Georgia 30323 ESSD Projects Westinghouse Electric Corp.
Mr. Heyward G. Shealy, Chief MNC West Tower - Bay 239 Bureau of Radiological Health P.O. Box 355 South Carolina Department of Health Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 ar.o Environmental Control 2600 Rull Street County Manager of York County Columbia, South Carolina 29?01 York County Coorthouse York South Carolina 29745 Karen E. Long Assistant Attorney General Richard P. Wilson, Esq.
N.C. Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General P.O. Box 6?9 S.C. Attorney General's Office Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 P.O. Box 11549 Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Spence Perry, Esquire General Counsel Piedmont Municipal Power-Agency Federal Emergency Manacement Agency 100 Memorial Drive Room 840 Greer, South Carolina 29651 500 C Street Washington, D. C.
20472 Mr. Michael Hirsch Federal Emergency Manacement Agency Office of the General Counsel Room 840 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C.
2047?
Prian P. Cassidy, Regional Counsel Federal Emergency Managerent Agency, Region I J. W. McCormach POCH Boston, Massachusetts 02109
.