ML20205F764
| ML20205F764 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 03/24/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205F755 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8703310286 | |
| Download: ML20205F764 (2) | |
Text
'
'o
. UNITED STATES g
8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
8
,I WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 o,,,s*
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 23 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-35 AND AMENDMENT NO. 13 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-52 CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DUKE POWER COMPANY, ET AL.
INTRODUCTION By [[letter::05000413/LER-1986-020, :on 860310,both Trains of Turbine Trip on Reactor Trip circuitry,hi-hi Steam Generator Water Level & Safety Injection Circuits Inoperable.Caused by Blown Fuse & Loose Wire.Fuse Replaced.Wire Tightened|letter dated April 9,1986]], and supplemented February 13, 1987, Duke Power Company, et al., (the licensee) proposed changes to Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.7.7 and its bases for Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2.
The changes would increase the outage time of the auxiliary building filtered exhaust system froin 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to 7 days, and make the TS consistent with the Standard Technical Specification (STS). Because the February 13, 1987, sub-mittal clarified certain TS requirements, the substance of the changes noticed in the Federal Reoister and the proposed no significant hazards determination were not affected.
EVALUATION TS 3/4.7.7 for Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, regarding the
\\
" Auxiliary Building Filtered Exhaust System" corresponds to the "ECCS Pump Room Exhaust Air Cleanup System" of the STS. The requirements of the STS are intended for a plant that has two independent trains. As shown by the FSAR and the licensee's [[letter::05000413/LER-1986-020, :on 860310,both Trains of Turbine Trip on Reactor Trip circuitry,hi-hi Steam Generator Water Level & Safety Injection Circuits Inoperable.Caused by Blown Fuse & Loose Wire.Fuse Replaced.Wire Tightened|April 9,1986, letter]], each Catawba Unit does have two independ-ent trains. Nevertheless, the previous Catawba TS impose special requirements, as though there is only a single train; that is, only 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> are allowed for returning a train to operable status. The licensee has proposed changes that are consistent with the STS requirements which allow 7 days to return an inde-pendent train to service if the other train is operable. Furthermore, the licensee proposed to clarify the bases for this TS. The staff has reviewed the proposed changes to the TS and bases and concluded that they are consistent with the guidelines of the Standard Review Plan Section 6.5.1 and STS, Therefore, the changes are acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION g-e
$8 The amendments involve a change in use of facility components located within Qg@
the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes in requirements.
i gn The staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that g
may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in indivi-
' rvo dual or cumulative occupational exposures. The Comission has previously Q@
issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there have been no public comments on such finding, ce Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical ex-S@g clusion set forth in 10 CFR Section 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 the amendments.
- CONCLUSION The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (51 FR 30565) on August 27, 1986, and 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 of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors: Kahtan Jabbour, PWR#4/DPWR-A Charles Willis, PSB/DPWR-A Dated: March 24, 1987 a
s 5
I
_-m________-.
._m._m.,
_-__._