ML20209F813
| ML20209F813 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 09/08/1986 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209F778 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8609120264 | |
| Download: ML20209F813 (2) | |
Text
-
oreag%
UNITED STATES
~8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
7,
.E WASHINGTON,0. C. 20555 k..... /'
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0.9 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-35 AND AMENDMENT N0.2 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-52 DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION,. UNITS 1 AND 2 l
INTRODUCTION On February 21, 1985, the NRC staff issued its Safety Evaluation Report (SER) on the Westinghouse Technical Specification Optimization Program for increased surveillance intervals and out-of-service times for testing and maintenance of the Reactor Trip System (RTS). The Optimization Program proposal was set forth in WCAP-10271, " Evaluation of Surveillance Frequencies and Out-of-Service Times j
for Reactor Protection Instrumentation System," and Supplement 1 thereto.
By letter dated July 22, 1986, Duke Power Company, et al., (the licensee) pro-posed several changes to the Catawba lechnical Specifications based on the Optimization Program. One of these proposed changes, which sought to allow RTS analog channel testing in a bypassed condition instead of a tripped condition, was withdrawn by a subsequent letter from the licensee, dated September 11, 1985.
The remaining proposed changes have been evaluated by the NRC staff. A March 7, 1986, letter requested that the above changes also be approved for Catawba Unit 2 which received its low power license on February 24, 1986. The June 12, 1986, letter clarified the licensee's request regarding the turbine stop valve closure / turbine trip.
EVALUATION These amendments increase, frori one to six hours, the time during which an in-operable RTS analog channel may be maintained in an untripped condition (See Table 3.3-1, Action Statements 2a and 6a in the revised Technical Specifications).
The time an inoperable RTS analog channel may be bypassed to allow testing of another channel in the same function is increased from two to four hours (See Table 3.3-1, Action Statements 2b and 6b in the revised Technical Specifications).
A cautionary note is added to the action statements referencing the more strin-gent requirements for Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) channels for RTS analog channels comon to ESFAS (See Table 3.3-1 Functional Units 9, 10, and 13 and Note **).
The time an inoperable turbine stop valve instrument channel (associated with the reactor trip system) may be maintained in an un-tripped condition is increased from one hour to six hours (See Table 3.3-1, Action Statement 11 in the revised Technical Specifications. We find these changes to be consistent with those which we reviewed and accepted for the Optimization Program proposal. Therefore, the staff finds these changes ac-ceptable on the bases set forth in the staff's February 21, 1985, SER.
860912O264 860908 hDR ADOCK 05000413 PDR
' ~.
The amendments delete Action Statement 7 and substitute a reference to Action Statement 6 for those reactor trip channels which referenced Action Statement 7 (See Table 3.3-1, Functional Units 11,12 and 16a in the revised Technical Specifications). This change is discussed in Supplement 1 to WCAP-10271 and results from the similarity and the intent of Action Statements 6 and 7.
Further, the staff in a July 24, 1985, letter from Harold R. Denton to L.B.
Butterfield identified this to be a specific acceptable revision in the model technical specifications provided to the Westinghouse Owner Group (WOG).
On this basis, the staff finds this change acceptable as proposed by the licensee.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION The amendments involve a change in use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and a change in surveillance requirements. The staff has detenpined 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 cumulative occupational exposure.
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 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 assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
CONCLUSI0*!
The Commission made proposed determinations that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which were published in the Federal Register (50 FR 51620) on December 18, 1985, for Catawba Unit I and (51 FR 10456) on March 26,1986, for Catawba Unit 2, 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 Commission's regulations and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the connon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors: Kahtan Jabbour, PD#4 Fred Burrows, EISCB Richard Emch, TOSB r
Dated: September 8, 1986
, -,.. _, _.