ML20236U173
| ML20236U173 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 11/24/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236U163 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8712020334 | |
| Download: ML20236U173 (2) | |
Text
.
paeog jo.,,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- E WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
%...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0. 35 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-35 AND AMENDMENT NO. 26 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-52 CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DUKE POWER COMPANY, ET AL.
INTRODUCTION By letter dated July 27, 1987, Duke Power Company, et al.
(thelicensee) proposed amendments to revise Technical Specification (TS} 2.2.1 Table 2.2-1 and TS 3/4.3.1, Tables 3.3-1, 3.3-2 and 4.3-1 to reflect a modification to the Catawba Unit 1 turbine trip circuitry which would relocate an anticipatory reactor trip on turbine trip' input pressure signal from the' turbine control valves to the turbine stop valves. Catawba Unit 2 has already implemented this modification and is included only administratively because the TSs for both units are combined in one document. By letter dated October 8, 1987, the licensee clarified certain aspects of the' request. However, the substance of '
the changes noticed in the Federal Register and the proposed no significant' hazards consideration detennination were not affected.
EVALUATION The Catawba Unit I anticipatory reactor trip on turbine trip was previously actuated, for reactor powers greater than 70 percent, by a low pressure signal from 2 out of 4 pressure switches which sense the turbine control valve electro-hydraulic oil pressure, or by valve closed signals from 4 out of 4 turbine steam stop valve limit switches. The proposed modification would move the 4 pressure switches and associated control packs from the main control valves to the main stop valves. Thus, a inain turbine power-load mismatch would still result in the closure of the control and intercept I
valves but'an unnecessary reactor trip signal will not be generated because the main stop valves would not produce the trip signal. No credit was taken for this trip in any of the safety analyses included in Chapter 15 of the Final Safety Analysis Report.
This modification would bring Unit I design and TS in agreement with those for Unit 2.
Also, unnecessary reactor trips and resulting challenges to the reactor protection system would be eliminated without any adverse effects on j
plant systems or safe shutdown of the plant.
l Based on the above evaluation, the staff finds that the licensee's request is l
acceptable, i
8712020334 871124 PDR ADOCK 05000413 P
. I ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION The amendments involve changes to the installation or use of facility com-
'l ponents located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes in surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that the I
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 exposures. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there have been no public coments on such finding.
Accordingly, the amendments meet the l
eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Section 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 tne amendments.
CONCLUSION The Comission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (52 FR 34003) on September 9, 1987. The Commission consulted with the state of South Carolina. No public comments were received, and the state of South Carolina did not have any coments.
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 amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
Kahtan Jabbour, PWR#4/DPWR-A Fred H. Burrows, ICSB/ DEST Donald Katze, SRXB/ DEST i
Dated: November 24, 1987
_ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ - -