ML20206B455
| ML20206B455 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206B431 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8704090157 | |
| Download: ML20206B455 (2) | |
Text
.,
E[....
UNITED STATES l
- q,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666
%,...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 26 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-35 AND AMENDMENT NO. 16 TO FACILITY OPERATING L.' CENSE NPF-52 CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DUKE POWER COMPANY, ET AL.
g INTRODUCTION By letter dated July 31, 1985,)and supplemented October 10, 1986, Duke Power Company, et al., (the licensee proposedachangetoTechnicalSpecification(TS)
Surveillance Requirement 4.8.2.1.la.3) concerning electrolyte leakage for Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2.
The change would allow battery operation when there is minor electrolyte leakage.
EVALUATION The proposed revision would change the requirement to demonstrate the oper-ability of the 125 volt battery bank and charger by verifying, at least once per 7 days, that "there is no visible indication of electrolyte leakage" to the requirement that "there is no visible indication of damaging electrolyte leakage." This chan electrolyte leakage.ge would allow battery operation when there is minor By letter dated August 15, 1986, the NRC staff requested additional infor-mation regarding the proposed change. By letter dated October 10, 1986, the licensee modified the July 31, 1985, request to alleviate the staff's concerns, as stated in section 8.3.2 of the Catawba Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-0954), regarding the possibility that the electrolyte leakage might cause a discharge path through the metal battery rack which would go un-detected on the de system ground detection because the racks are ungrounded.
The proposed change to the TS would retain the requirement to check for electrolyte leakage that was damaging but would allow continued operation with minor electrolyte leakage that would be unlikely to cause any signif-icant discharge of a battery cell. Also the existing 7 day and 92 day battery surveillances, required by TS 4.8.2.1.la, and 4.8.2.1.lb., on battery terminal voltage and battery cell electrolyte level, float voltage, and specific gravity provide additional assurance of the operability of the battery. Therefore, the staff finds this TS change acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION The amendments involve a change in use of facility components located within 1
the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and chances in requirements.
The staff has determined that the amendments involve no s'gnificant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the tyoes, of any effluents that 0704090157 070401 PDR ADOCK 05000413 f
' may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in indivi-dual or cumulative occupational exposures.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there have been no public comments on such finding.
Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibilit clusion set forth in 10 CFR Section St.22(c)(9)y criteria for categorical ex-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 Comission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register i
l g
(52 FR 5852) on February 26, 1987, and consulted with the state of South Ca rolina. No pubite conrnents were received, and the state of South Carolina l
did not have any coments.
1 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 l
conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations, and the issuance of l
the amendments will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the l
health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
Kahtan Jabbour PWR#4/C'WR-A James Lazevnick, EICSB/DPWR-A Dated: April 1, 1987 l
l l
l
.