ML20236M595
| ML20236M595 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 07/09/1998 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236M592 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9807140150 | |
| Download: ML20236M595 (2) | |
Text
a f KEEG
.p
\\
UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
WAsNINGToN, D.C 30806 4001 r
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCl FAR REACTOR REGULATION ret ATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 167 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-35 AND AMENDMENT NO. 159 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-52 DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION. ET AL.
CATAWBA NUCI FAR STATION. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-413 AND 50-414
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated April 20,1998, Duke Energy Corporation, et al. (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications
- (TS). The requested changes would correct errors in Tables 3.3-3, Engineered Safety Features Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation, and 4.3-2, Engineered Safety Features Actuation System Instrumentation Surveillance Requkements.
2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION TS 3/4.3.2, Tables 3.3-3 and 4.3-2 delineate operability and surveillance requirements, respectively, for the portion of the ESFAS, which actuates the Control Room Area Ventilation System. Functional Unit 11.a (Automatic Actuation Logic and Actuation Relays) of Table 3.3-3 states that two channels of the subject instrumentation are required operable in all modes of plant operation. Table 4.3-2 similarly specifies that the surveillance requirement for the same functional unit be applicable for all modes.
The requirements for Functional Unit 11.a have been incorrectly spacified by the subject tables as applicable in all modes (1 thru 6) of operation. The only relationship between automatic actuation of the Control Room Area Ventilation System (CRAVS) and the ESFAS is through a Safety injection (SI) initiation, i.e., if an Si initiation occurs, it will cause an automatic start of the nonrunning CRAVS filter train. The ESFAS requirements for Si are correctly specified in the subject tables as Function Unit 11.c (which references Functional Unit 1) to be applicable for Modes 1,2,3, and 4. The mode requirements for both Functional Units 11.a and 11.c should
' be consistent, i.e., applicable in Modes 1 through 4.
The licensee proposed to revise the mode applicability for Functional Unit 11.a from "All
[ modes)" to "1,2, 3,4"in Tables 3.3-3 and 4.3-2. Based on the preceding discussion, this revision only corrects errors in these tables. The staff has reviewed the proposed revisions against the actual design of the involved systems, and agrees with the licensee. The revisions are, thus, acceptable.
~
9907140150 990709 PDR ADOCK 05000413 4
P PDR 9
A 9 ;
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
L in accordance with the Commission's regulations, the South Carolina State official, Mr. Virgil Autrey, was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments change requirements with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and change surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has determined that ine amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, 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 radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (63 FR 27761, dated May 20,1998). 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.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, thati (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) suc.n activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the pubiic.
Principal Contributor: Subinoy Mazumdar Date: July 9, 1998 4
}
_ _ _