ML20197A633
| ML20197A633 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 03/02/1998 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197A630 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9803090327 | |
| Download: ML20197A633 (3) | |
Text
.
pnuo y*
4 *,
UNITED STATES s
. j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
' t WASHINGTON, D.C. 2066H001
/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATIOE RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.163TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-35 AND AMENDMENT NOfrEO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-52 DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION. ET AL.
CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-413 AND 50-414
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated December 17,1997, Duke Energy Corporation, et al. (DPC or the licensee),
submitted a request to revise Section 6.9.1.9 of the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Techr:ical Specifications to reference updated or recently approved topical reports which document methodologies to calculate cycle-specific limits in the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR).
2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION Generic Letter 88-16 provided guidance on removing cycle-specific parameters that are calculated using NRC approved methodologies, which are listed in plant technical specifications. Tne parameters are then replaced in the techncial specifications with a reference to an approved report. The licensee's December 17,1997, letter proposed changes to reflect current versions of these reports. The staff's proposed no significant hazards evaluation was published on January 28,1998 (63 FR 4310)
The licensee proposed to update the listing for the COLR in Section 6.9.1.9 of the Catawba Technical Specifications as discussed below:
Topical Report DPC-NE-2004P-A, Revision 1, " Duke Power Comp &ny McGuire and Catawba Nuclear Stations Core Thermal-Hydraulic Methodology using VIPRE-01"- (Note that ' Duke Power Company was the previous name of the licensee.) Currently, Revision 0 is referenced.
Revision 1 was approved by letter, P. S. Tam to M. S. Tuckman, dated February 20,1997 (filed under TACs M97139 and M97140). Since Revision 1 was previously approved for Catawba, its replacement for Revision 0 is acceptable.
9003090327 980302 PDR ADOCK 05000413 P
4 2-Topical Report DPC-NE-2005P-A, Revision 1, " Thermal Hydraulic Statistical Core Design Methodology"- Currently, Revision 0 is referenced. Revision 1 was approved by letter, H. N. Berkow to M. S. Tuckmaa, dated November 7,1996 (filed under TACs M95333 and M95334). Since Revision 1 was previously approved for Catawba, its replacement for Revision 0 is acceptable, Topical Report DPC-NE 2008P-A, " Fuel Mechanical Reload Analysis Methodology Using
- TACO 3,* Apnl 1995 - Currently, Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) Topical Report BAW-10162P-A is referenced. By letter, i. N. Berkow to M. S. Tuckman, dated April 3,1995 (filed under TACs M89548 and M89549), the staff approved transfer of the fuel performance code TACO 3 from B&W to Duke Power Company for reload licensing applications. The licensee's request for amendment inadvertently omitted the 'P-A' designation at the end of the topical report number; the stafs correction of this typographical error in the amended TS page is purely editorial, and does not change the staWs original proposed no significant hazard determination. The proposed replacement of BAW-10162P-A with DPC-NE-2008P-A reflects the staffs previous approval, and is acceptable.
Tr pical Report BAW-10183P-A, " Fuel Rod Gas Pressure Cnterion," B&W Fuel Company, Juiy 1995 - Currently, the topical report as referenced is the preapproved version, BAW-10183P, dated May 1994. The licensee proposed to reference the approved version, dated July 1995. The licensee's request for amendment inadvertently omitted the "A" designation at the end of the topical report number; the staffs correction of this typographical error in the amended TS page is purely editorial, and does not change the staffs original no
. significant hazard determination. This change, as corrected, reflects the approved status of the
' topical report and is acceptable.
The use of NRC-approved methodologies will ensure that values for cycle-specific parameters aseletermined consistent with all applicable limits (e.g., fuel thermal-hydraulic limits, core performance limus) of the plant sa'ety analysis. Therefore, the proposed changes are acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
in accordance with t!,e Commis,sion's regulations, the South Carolina State officiel was notified
- of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments change recordkeeping, reporting or administrative procedures or requirements.' Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
3-
5.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discessed 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, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's rogulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: Peter S. Tam i
Date:
March 2, 1998 i
1
...