ML20237D521
| ML20237D521 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 12/11/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237D520 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8712240006 | |
| Download: ML20237D521 (2) | |
Text
l
^
pm o,,
UNITED STATES
[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y,
p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION REL ATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 36 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-35 AND AMENDMENT NO. 28 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-52 DUKE POWER COMPANY, ET AL.
1 DOCKET NOS. 50-413 AND 50-414 CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 l
INTRODUCTION By letter dated October 14, 1987, Duke Power Company, et al., (the licensee) proposed amendments to revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.1.9 "Contain-ment Purge Systems" to increase the limit placed on the amount of time the 4-inch Containment Air Release and Addition (VQ) System valves may be open from 2000 hours0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br /> per calendar year to 3000 hours0.0347 days <br />0.833 hours <br />0.00496 weeks <br />0.00114 months <br />.
By letter dated November 18, 1987, the licensee clarified certain aspects of the request by stating in TS 3.6.1.9b. the safety-related reasons that would justify this request. Also, BASES 3/4.6.1.9 " Containment Purge System" asso-ciated with this TS were revised.
Because the November 18, 1987, submittal clarified certain aspects of the request, the substance of the changes noticed in the Federal Register and the proposed no significant hazards detennination were not affected.
EVALUATION-TS Bases 3/4.6.1.9 state that the total time this system may be open is a I
function of "... anticipated need and operating experience. Only safety-related reasons; e.g., containment pressure control or the reduction of airborne radio-activity to facilitate access for surveillance and maintenance activities may be used to support the additional time requests." There was no rigorous basis i
for establishing 2000 hours0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br /> as the time limit for purging and venting the con-tainment - only to limit the time for its use. The increase to 3000 hours0.0347 days <br />0.833 hours <br />0.00496 weeks <br />0.00114 months <br /> is not significant from a safety standpoint.
The licensee stated that the experience at Catawba Unit 1 indicates the need to open these valves for a period greater than 2000 hours0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br />, and that this system is used to maintain containment pressure within the limits of TS 3/4.6.1.4 during nonnal plant operation. Containment pressure fluctuations due to postulated accidents are mitigated by safety-related systems other than the VO system.
Because these valves are assumed to be open at the onset of an accident (but would close upon receipt of an Engineered Safety Feature (ESF) signal), relaxing the restriction on the amount of time they may be open will have no effect on the accident analyses. Also, the VQ System valves are containment isolation valves and as such their closure, in response to an ESF signal, will limit the amount of containment air escaping to the atmosphere if there is concurrent loss-of-coolant accident and air release so that the release is within the 8712240006 071211 ADOCK0500g3 4
DR
+
\\
. 4 limits of 10 CFR 100. Filters are provided on this system to remove iodine and other radioactive particulate prior to discharge to the atmosphere. Leak rate tests at Catawba have shown that these valves are highly reliable and leak tight.
i Based on the above evaluation, the staff concludes that increasing the limit I
placed on the amount of time the VQ system valves may be open for the safety-I
- related reasons stated in TS 3.6.1.9b., from 2000 hours0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br /> per calendar year to 3000 hours0.0347 days <br />0.833 hours <br />0.00496 weeks <br />0.00114 months <br />, is acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION The amendments involve a change in use of facility compontents located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes in requirements.
The staff has determined 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 indivi-dual or cumulative occupational exposures. The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that these 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 ex-clusion 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 these 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 42360) on November 4, 1987, and consulted with the state of South Carolina. No public coments 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 Commission'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 Contributor: Kahtan N. Jabbour, PDII-3/DRPI/II Dated: December 11, 1987
_m