ML20205M384
| ML20205M384 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 03/27/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205M383 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8704020372 | |
| Download: ML20205M384 (2) | |
Text
o UNITE 3 STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.o U
i WASHINGTON, D. C. 20556
/
,,g, SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 24 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-35 AND AMENDMENT NO. 14 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-52 CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DUKE POWER COMPANY, ET AL.
INTRODUCTION By letters dated August 7, November 8, and December 4 and 20,1985, Duke Power Company, et al., (the licensee) proposed changes to Technical Specification (TS) Table 3.2-1, titled "DNB (departure from nucleate boiling) parameters,"
for Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. This table, associated with TS 4.2.5, specifies the operating limits for the Reactor Coolant System average temperature (T3yg) and the Pressurizer pressure.
The previous limits for these DNB related parameters do not account for indication instrumentation measurement uncertainties and therefore require that the measured values, as given by station indication instrumentation, be adjusted for instrumentation uncertainties prior to comparison with the parameter limits of TS Table 3.2-1. The requested amendments would adjust these parameters to include the instrumentation uncertainties, allowing direct comparison against measured values, as indicated on station instrumentation.
l Associated TS Bases 3/4.2.5 "DNB Parameters" would be revised to reflect the proposed changes to TS Table 3.2-1.
I' EVALUATION I
Catawba TS 3.2.5, Limiting Condition for Operation for DNB Parameters, requires that the Reactor Coolant System average temperature and pressurizer pressure be maintained within the limits specified in Table 3.2-1.
Associated sur-veillance specification 4.2.5 requires that these temperature and pressure parameters in Table 3.2-1 be periodically verified to be within their specified limits. Previously. Table 3.2-1 specified that the indicated coolant average temperature limit should be no higher than 592.5'F and the indicated oressurizer pressure limit should be no lower than 2220 psig for four-loop operation.
The changes to Table 3.2-1 proposed by the licensee are to provide more specific values for the " Indicated Reactor Coolant System Tavg" and the
" Indicated Pressurizer Pressure." This is accomplished in the revised table by specifying different limits for indications by instrument meters or computer i
readout available to the station operators.
For example, when all four instrumentation channels are operational, the limits for the average coolant temperature are 592*F and 593*F, respectively, for the meter average reading and the computer average reading; and the pressurizer pressure limits are 2227 psig and 2222 psig, respectively, for the meter and computer readings. Various limits are also specified for three instrumentation channels in operation, 8704020372 870327 PDR ADOCK 05000413 P
The limits specified in the revised table are obtained from the Catawba safety analysis and adjusted by appropriate uncertainties in the indicating system.
The safety analysis limits of the average coolant temperature and pressurizer pressure, which ensure no violation of the DNBR limit, are described in the Basis to TS 3/4.2.5. The plant specific instrumentation uncertainties are subtracted (or added) to these limits in the derivation of the indicated temperature and pressure limits. The licensee stated that the limit values of the coolant average temperature and pressure in the revised Table 3.2-1 were derived with the instrumentation uncertainties obtained from the Westinghouse Setpoint Methodology for Catawba and the actual indication uncertainties at the Catawba Station.
He find that proper consideration has been given in the derivation of the limits for the indicated coolant temperature and pressurizer pressure to ensure no violation of the DNBR limit. Therefore, the proposed changes to Table 3.2-1 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 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 the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there have been no public coments on such finding.
Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical ex-clusion set forth in 10 CFR Section 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuantto10CFR51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendrents.
CONCLUSION The Commission made a proposed detemination that the amendtrents involve no significant hazards consideration which was oublished in the Federal Register (51 FR 30564) on August 27, 1986, and consulted with the state of South Carolina. No public comments were received, and the state of South Carolina did not have any cornnents.
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 Gene Hsii, RSB/DPWR-A Dated: March 27, 1987
-