ML20205B310

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 176 & 168 to Licenses NPF-35 & NPF-52,respectively

ML20205B310
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	03/26/1999
From:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20205B308	List: ML20205B305 ML20205B310
References
NUDOCS 9903310209
Download: ML20205B310 (3)

Text

4 4

UNITED STATES l

f

.j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

1. g WASHINGTON, D.C. 205"H001 g

• * * *

• DAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.176 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-35 AND AMENDMENT NO. 168 TO FAClllTY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-52 DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION. '"T AL.

CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION. UNITS 1 AND2 DOCKET NOS. 50-413 AND 50-414 1.0 j_N1RODUCTION N

By latter dated January 28,1999, Duke Energy Corporation, et al (DEC, the licensee),

submitted a request for changes to the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Technica' Specifications (TSs). The requested changes would revise TS Section 3.7.13, " Fuel Handling Ventilation Exhaust System (FHVES)* and associated Bases, correcting the discrepancies between the current design and this section. Section 3.7.13 of the joint Catawba Units 1 and 2 TSs delineates operational and surveillance requirements (SRs) for the FHVES. The licensee found that certain parts of this section and the associated Bases section are in error and not in agreement with the existing design. The staff's review of DEC's proposed corrections k set forth below.

2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION 2.1 Technical Specification Section 3.7.13 According to both the Catawba Final Safety Analysir Report (FSAR) and Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), Section 9.4.2.2, the i-HVES filters airborne radioactivity from the fuel pool area following a postulated fuel hand llng accident. The FHVES consists of two independent and redundant trains. Each train, in turn, consists of two 50 percent n Jacity filter units. Each filter unit consists of a heater, a prefilter, high efficiency particulate air inters, an activated carbon adsorber, and a fan. Tho FSAR and UFSAR both describe the total exhaust flow of each train to be approximately 33,130 cubic feet per minute (cfm).

Section 5.5.11 of the TSs quantifies the FHVES individual fan flow rate as 16,565 cfm i10%

Thus, the maximum flow rate per FHVES train would be 16,565 x 2 x 110% = 36,443 cfm.

Contrary to the above design basis, SR 3.7.13.4 current ly states " Verify one FHVES train can l

maintain a pressure s -0.25 inches water gauge with respect to atmospheric pressure during l

operation at a flow rate s 18,221 cfm." The "18,221 cfm" is the maximum flow rate of each fan, which is 50 percent of the maximum flow rate per train. This SR is erroneous because it implies that (1) only one 50 percent-capacity fan is needed to operate, and (2) the flow rate generated 9903310209 990326 PDR ADOCK 05000413 P

PDR

% by that one fan is sufficient to maintain the air pressure at s -0.25 inch water gauge with respect to atmospheric pressure.

l The licensee proposed to correct this error by changing "18,221 cfm" to "36,443 cfm," the l

maximum flow rate of one train of the FHVES. The licensee stated that the FHVES is not tested l

on a per filter unit (i.e., per fan) basis, but on a per train basis. This error was introduced by Amendments No.173 (Unit 1) and 165 (Unit 2), which converted the TS to the improved Technical Specification (ITS) format. Before the ITS conversion, the numerical value of the flow rate was not specified by the TSs.

The staff reviewed the licensee's submitted information and agreed that errors were inadvertently introduced by the ITS conversion. The licensee's proposed change would correct the error and is, therefore, acceptable.

i 2.2 TS Bases Section B 3.7.13 i

i (Note: deleted text is shown as strikeout; added text is shown as highlighted) l Tha licensee proposed to rewrite the first two semences of the second paragraph under the heading BACKGROUND to read as follows:

The FHVES consists of two independent and redundant trains with two filter units per train. Each train filter unit consists of a heater, a prefilter,-e high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters, an activated carbon adsorber section for removal of gaseous activity j

(principally iodines), and a fan.

Under the Limiting Conditions for Operation [LCO), the licenseo proposed to modify the wording to read:

a.

FerHe Fans are OPERABLE; l

b.

HEPA filters and carbon adsorbers are not excessively restricting flow, and are l

capable of performing their filtration function; and Under SURVElLLANCE REQUIREMENTS, the licensee proposed to modify one of the sentences of SR 3.7.13.4 to read:

The FHVES is designed to maintain s -0.25 inches water gauge with respect to atmospheric pressure at a flow rate of s 48:224 36,443 cfm to the fucl buZag.

These revisions are consistent with the design depicted in the FSAR and UFSAR, and revised l

SR 3.7.13.4.

I The TS Bases is a licenswontrolled document, and is not part of the TS (10 CFR 50.36(a)).

However, the staff reviewec' 'the licensee's proposed changes as supplemental information for i

the changes in TS Section 3.7.13. The staff finds the proposed changes to the Bases j

acceptable.

i kr J.

s 3-w,-:

,r-

-2

~ -

w.

,w,-w- + - -. - -

~-,---

~ -,.

3.0 STATE CONSULTATION

in accordance with the Commission's regulations, the South Carolina State official, Mr. Virgil AJtrey, Was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

The amendments change surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has determined 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 cumulat.ve occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously i

issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (64 FR 9187, February 24,1999).

Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility crite ia for categorica: exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmentalimpact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.

5.0 CONCLUSION

The Commission has 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, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, 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 Contributors: Harold Walker Peter S. Tam Date: March 26, 1999

.