ML20151L629
| ML20151L629 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 07/28/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151L617 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8808040098 | |
| Download: ML20151L629 (2) | |
Text
..
.- +p ugjo UNITED STATES g
8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
y, j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20556
,o SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENOMENT NO. 51 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-35 AND AMENDMENT NO. 44 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-52 DUKE POWER COMPANY, ET AL.
CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-413 AND 50-414 I.
INTRODUCTION By letter dated February 15, 1988, Duke Power Company, et al., (the licensee) proposed amendments to the operating licenses for Catawba Units 1 and 2, which would revise Technical Specification (TS) 4.8.1.1.29 7) and add TS 4.8.1.1.29 15) for testing the diesel generators (DGs). The changes would permit the licensee I
to separate the DG 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> test run and the hot restart with full Engineered Sdfety Features (ESF) load test.
These tests were previously carried out in i
succession.
II.
EVALUATION The amendments add a new TS 4.8.1.1.29 15) which requires that the DGs be operated at greates than or equal to 5600 kw but less than or equal to 5750 kw for one hour or until operating Lemperatur's has stabilized, and then within 5 minutes, that the DG be restarted end accident loads be sequenced on it in accordance with TS 4.8.1.1.2g.6)t;).
This replaces t!.e prelious requirement that the start and load secuence be conducted within 5 minutes of the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> load test specified in TS 4.8.1.1.29 7).
The licensee states that performing tliese tests in quick succession, as previously required by TS 4.8.1.1.29 7),
I l
creates o potential for cousing critical path complications and delays during an outdge.
Conducting the start and sequencing test after the diesel has been operated, dt its Continuous rating, for une hour or until operdting temperature has stabilized fulfills the intent of conoucting the test following the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> load test.
The tests under the proposed change would be carried out under conditions which are nearly identical to those required for previous tests t'n because the DGs would be operated until temperature stabilization is achieved
-o which is the objective in both cases.
The proposed change does not signif-icantly elter the requirements for either the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> test run or the hot restart test with full ESF load test and provides the same degree of assurance oo gg regarding the DG operability and reliability.
$6 Besed on the above evaluation, the staff finds that the licensee's proposed
@g change has no adverse impact on sofety and would not pose an undue risk to p
public health and safety. Therefore, it is acceptable.
be III. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION B&
These amendments involve changes to the installation or use of facility com-ponents located within the restricted area os defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and
~. _.
.- changes in surveillance requirements. The steff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant chenge 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 NRC staff has previously made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding. 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 assecsment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
IV. CONCLUSION The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (53 FR 17789) on May 18, 1988.
The Commission consulted with the state of South Carolina.
No public comments were received, and the state of South Carolina did not have any comments.
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety cf the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed monner, and '2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Conmission'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 Contributor:
K. JabboJr, PD#11-3/0RP-I/II Dated: July 28, 1988
-_