ML20151K643
| ML20151K643 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 07/27/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151K641 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8808030234 | |
| Download: ML20151K643 (3) | |
Text
.-
/
UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
5 j
WASrH NG TON, D. C. 20555
%.....p SAFETYEVALVATIONBYTHEOFFEEOFNUCLEARREACTORREGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 4o TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-35 AND AMENDMENT N0. 42 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE HPF-52 DUKE POWER COMPANY, ET AL.
@AWBANUCLEARSTATION, UNITS 1AND2 DOCKET NOS. 50-413 AND 50-414 BTRODUCTION By letter dated June 29, 1987, supplemented by letters dated December 4, 1987 dnd April 1,1988, the licensee requested amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. HPF-35 and NPF-52 for the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2.
The proposed amendments would revise Technical Specification (TS) Table 4.3-1, "Reactor Trip System Instrumentation Surveillance Requirements" to delete the requirement to test the reactor coolant flow rates in the bypass loops in which Resistance Temperature Detectors (RTDs) are installed to ir,easure the hot leg ano cold leg temperatures, The flow rates affect the time response of the temperature signals which are needed for reactor controls and protection. The revisions are applicable to Catawba Unit 1 only; however, Unit 2 is included administratively because the TSs for both Units are combined in one document.
The proposed amendments wculd be in effect only until the licensee completes the planned removal of the RTD bypass manifold in Unit 1 and the installation of the RTDs directly in the hot leg and cold leg piping. These plant modifications were authorized by license amendments issued February 17, 1988.
The station modifications have already been completed for Unit 2 during its recent refueling outage.
For Unit 1, they are scheduled to be completed during its fourth refueling outage in March 1990.
EVALUATION The licensee justifies the proposed deletion of the bypass loop flow rate tests on the bases that (1) other means are available to indicate and measure these flows, and (2) a significant radiation dose would be avoided because the performance of the tests involves four workers spending four hours each in lower containment.
Individuel low flow alarms with status lights for each reactor coolant loop bypass flow are provided on t'. '1oin control board in the control room.
The alarms and status lights provide the operatcr with immediate indication of a low flow condition (less than 90% of its initial value) in any bypass loop.
8808030234 800727 PDR ADOCK 05000413 P
PNU
. Since the initial measured values for all of the loop flows are well above the minimum acceptable flow rates, the annunciators would alarm well in advance of any loop flow rate dropping below the acceptance criterion flow rate.
A quarterly channel calibration will be preformed on the control room low flow alarms, starting in September 1988.
Local indicators accessible during power operation are provided in the containment annulus to verify the total flow through the RTD bypass manifold for each loop.
These flow indicators will be monitored on a quarterly basis to provide an alternative measurement of possible flow degradation.
Since initial operation of Unit 1 in December 1984, there have been no observations of flow diminution or blockage in the bypass loops, indicating a low potential for significant blockage before the flarch 1990 outage.
On the basis of its review of the information summarized above, the staff concludes that the deletion of the bypass flow rate tests will not significantly degrade the safety aspects of the RTD temperature measurement capabilty and that adequate systems are available to detect bypass flow degradation in the time period before the March 1990 power outage.
Therefore, the proposed TS i
changes are acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION These amendments involve changes to the installation or use of facility com-ponents located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes in surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that the amendments involve no cignificant 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 exposure.
The NRC staff has made a determination that the amendments involve no significant ha:'ards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendments neet 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 these amendments.
CONCLUSION The Commission made proposed determinations that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which were published in the Federal Register (52 FR 49223) on December 30, 1987, and (53 FR 17788) on May 18, 1988.
The Comission consulted with the state of South Carolina.
No public comments were received, and the state of South Carolina did not have any coments.
We have 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, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
S. Kirslis, PD#11-3/DRP-1/II K. Jabbour, PD#11-3/DRP-1/II J. Zeiler, Region II Dated: July 27, 1988
Mr. H. B. Tucker Duke Power Company Catawba Nuclear Station cc:
A.V. Carr, Esq.
North Carolina Electric Membership Ouke Power Company Corp.
422 South Church Street 3400 Sumner Boulevard Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 P.O. Box 27306 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell Saluda River Electric Cooperative, and Reynolds Inc.
1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
P.O. Box 929 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, Nor.th Carolina 27626-0513 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 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 and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street County Manager of York County Columbia, South Carolina 29201 York County Courthouse 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 629 S.C. ?,ttorney General's Office Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 P.O. Box 11549 Cclumbia, South Carolina 29211 Snence Perry, Esquire General Counsel Piedmont Municipal Power Agency Federal Emergency Management Agency 100 Memorial Drive Room 840 Greer, South Carolina 29651 500 C Street Washington, D. C.
20472 Mr. Michael Hirsch Federal Emergency flanagement Agency Brian P. Cassidy, Regional Counsel Office of the General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency, Room 840 Region I 500 C Street, S.W.
J. W. ficCormach P0CH Washington, D. C.
20472 Boston, Massachusetts 02109
.. _.