ML20207N138
| ML20207N138 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 10/13/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207N137 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8810180522 | |
| Download: ML20207N138 (2) | |
Text
t
'/
'o,7, UNITED STATES
[i j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WAsmGTON, D. C. 20Sfee
\\,,, +..../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 55 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-35 ED. AMENDMENT NO. 48 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-52 DUKE POWER COMPANY, ET AL.
CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET N05. 50-413 AND 50-414
). 0 !NTRODUCTION By letter dated August 15, 1988, Duke Power Company, et al., (the licensee) proposed that License Conditions 2.C.(12)(a) and 2.C.(8)(a) of Facility Operating Licenses NPF-35 and NPF-52, respectively, be amended to allow an extension of time for the resolution of the accumulator r,ank instrumentation issue. The extension would be for two complete cycles of operation.
A two operating cycle extension for Catawba Unit I was previously approved by amendment 15, issued on October 6,1986, to Facility Operating License NPF-35 and a one cycle extension for Catawba Unit 2 was approved by amendment 27 issued on November 25, 1987 to facility Operating License NPF-52, 2.0 EVALUATION The proposed amendments would revise License Conditions 2.C.(12)(a) and 2.C.(8)(a) of the Catawba Units 1 and 2 licenses to allow an extension of time for the resolution of the accumulator tank instrumentation issue which is related to Generic Letter 82-33, "Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737, Requirements for Emergency l
Response Capability."
It was also discussed in Section 7.5.2 of Supplement 5 to the Catawba Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-0954) and is currently under staff review because of its generic implications, t
The prim.ary function of the accumulator pressure or level instrumentation is to monitor the pre-accident status of the accumulators to assure that the passive safety system is in a ready state to serve its safety function.
The licensee stated that the accumulator tank level and pressure are not referenced in any emergency procedure covering design basis events which may cause a harsh l
env ironme nt. No operator actions in these procedures are based on accumulator indications and the present instrumentation is fully qualified to perform its function of pre-accident monitoring.
Therefore, the staff concludes that extension of the date for upgrading the accumlator pressure or level instru-mentation until startup following the fif th refueling outage for Catawba Unit 1 l
and the fourth outage for Unit 2 is acceptable.
i GG101G0522 881013 l
PDR ADOCK 05000413 I
l PDC
)
[
, Based on the above discussion, the modified License Conditions 2.C.(12)(a) of NPF-35 and 2.C.(8)(a) of NPF-52 would, respectively, state that:
"Prior to startup following the fif th refueling outage, Duke Power Company shall provide qualified accumulator discharge instrumentation."
and "Prior to startup following the fourth refueling outage, Duke Power l
Company shall provide qualified accumulator discharge instrumentation."
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amendments involve changes to the installation or use of facility com-ponents located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in I
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 cumulative occupational exposure. The NRC staff has made a determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public coment 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 dssessment need be prepared in Connection with the issuance of these amendments.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Cemission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (53 FR 34602) on September 7,1988.
The Commission consulted with the state of South Carolina.
No public comments were received, and the state of S;uth 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.4111 not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such actisities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission'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. Jabbour, PDII-3/ORP-!/II Dated: October 13, 1988