ML20210D347
| ML20210D347 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 09/16/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210D332 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8609190154 | |
| Download: ML20210D347 (2) | |
Text
-
/
'o,,
UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
74
- E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
/
?****
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0.11 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-35 AND AMENDMENT N0. 4 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-52 l
CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DUKE POWER COMPANY, ET AL.
INTRODUCTION By letter dated June 6,1986, Duke Power Company, et al., (the licensee) proposed changes to Technical Specifications (TS) 4.4.4.3 and 4.4.4.4 to re-flect the upgrade of the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) Power Operated Relief Valves (PORVs) to safety grade for Catawba Unit 1.
The upgrade is to be accomplished during the current first refueling outage which started on August 9, 1986.
Because the Catawba Unit 2 PORVs were upgraded prior to Unit 2 fuel loading, the existing combined TS document for Catawba Units 1 and 2 contained TS 4.4.4.3 for Unit I and TS 4.4.4.4 for Unit 2.
The proposed changes are:
(1) to eliminate the previous TS 4.4.4.3, (2) to clarify the previous TS 4.4.4.4 so that it would be applicable to both Units 1 and 2, and (3) to renumber the previous TS 4.4.4.4 as the existing TS 4.4.4.3.
~
EVALUATION The SER for the Catawba Nuclear Station required the licensee to show that cold shutdown can be achieved using only safety related equipment. By letter dated October 26, 1983, the licensee responded by proposing to upgrade the Unit 1 RCS PORVs to safety grade during the first refueling outage, and for Unit 2 prior to fuel loading. This proposal was subsequently approved by the NRC staff in Section 5.4.4 of Supplement 2 to the Catawba SER. After SSER 2 was issued, the licensee (by letter dated March 21,1985) submitted a revision to the proposed PORV upgrade. This revision was to use cold-leg accumulators instead of supply tanks as the safety grade nitrogen supply for the PORVs.
In Supplement 5 to Catawba.SER, the staff found that this revision was acceptable.
The upgrade of the RCS PORVs is to be carried out for Catawba Unit I during the first refueling outage. The upgrade for Catawba Unit 2 PORVs was made prior to fuel loading.
Therefore the previous TS 4.4.4.3 and 4.4.4.4 for Units 1 and 2 PORVs were different. The amenoments would eliminate the differ-ences so that the resulting TS 4.4.4.3 would be applicable to both Units 1 and 2.
!b Abb N OIO b 13 p
,.*e The upgrade of the Unit 1.PORVs to safety grade provides additional assurance that the PORVs will operate as intended if called upon to depressurize the RCS in the event.of a design basis steam generator tube rupture accident. The Unit 1 PORV upgrade will make _the PORVs for both Units I and 2 identical.
Thus, the staff finds that the TS changes proposed by the licensee to reflect the upgrade are acceptable.
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 changes in surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change ir) the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational exposures. The Comission 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 categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Section 51.22(c)(9)y criteria for 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 (51 FR 28996) on August 13, 1986, and consulted with the state of South Carolina. No public coments 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 amendments will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and -safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
Kahtan Jabbour, PWR#4/DPWR-A Harry Balukjian, RSB/DPWR-A Dated: September 16, 1986
>