ML19343D038

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 2 to License NPF-9

ML19343D038
Person / Time
Site:	McGuire
Issue date:	04/02/1981
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML19343D036	List: ML19343D035 ML19343D038 ML19343D039
References
TAC-46812, NUDOCS 8104090132
Download: ML19343D038 (2)

Text

.

p SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE APR 2 1981 d

0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO LICENSE NPF-9 DUKE POWER COMPANY Introduction By letter dated February 23, 1981, the licensee requested certain revisions to the McGuire Nuclear Station Unit 1 Technical Specifications Appendix A to License NPF-9.

These revisions included the following items:

1.

Correction of several typographical errors.

2.

Revise reactor coolant system isolation valve identification and testing requirements.

3.

Increase the allowable concentration of oxygen in the waste gas holdup system and eliminate the requirements for a hydrogen monitor in the waste gas holdup system.

4.

Allow one safety injection pump to be operable whenever the temperature of one or more of the reactor coolant legs is less than or equal to 300 F.

The McGuire Unit 1 Technical Specifications were issued on January 23, 1981 as an integral part of the fuel-load, zero power operating license and are standard Westinghouse-PWR technical specifications reflecting plant specific design.

Evaluation The McGuire Nuclear Station utilizes the standard Westinghouse-PWR technical specifications and as such have been developed to reflect the McGuire design features. During this development changes to the specifications are required to reflect editorial matters such as typographical errors and clarifications to improve technical intent. We have reviewed and evaluated the licensee proposed changes and find that items (1) and (2) better reflect the intent of the specifications.

Item (2) has been changed to revise valve identification and allow leakage testina prior to entering Mode 2 consistent with the standard Westinghouse PWR technical specifications resulting in no significant safety considerations.

Regarding item (3) we reject the proposed chance since the staff had previously discussed this matter with the licensee in response to its January 12, 1981 letter and find no justification for the change. Further action on item (4) has been deferred pending additional justification by the licensee. The staff in further refining specific areas of the specifications have made revisions in addition to those proposed by the licensee. These matters were discussed with the licensee and revisions were mutually agreed upon.

830409O W

-2 Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant fra.n the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR Section 51.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.

Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:

(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability of consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assur-ance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in ca9pliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

DATE:

APR 2 1961

--