ML20029E708
| ML20029E708 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 05/11/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20029E707 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9405190365 | |
| Download: ML20029E708 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _..
l 1
na t
UNITED STATES
[!
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+
'C WASHINGTON, D.C. 20566-0001 4
,o
)
SAFETY EVALVATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0.142 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-9 h
AND AMENDMENT N0. 124 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-17 DUKE POWER COMPANY i
1 MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-369 AND 50-370
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated May 6,1993, Duke Power Company, et al. (the licensee),
submitted a request for changes to the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 4
Technical Specifications (TS). The requested change would correct an error in i
TS Table 3.3-2 that was made with License Amendments 128 and 110.
2.0 EVALUATION On March 22, 1985, the NRC issued Amendments 42 and 23 to Facility Operating Licenses NPF-9 and NPF-17 for the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, respectively.
The amendments revised the TS to reflect the transition to use optimized fuel assemblies.
In Table 3.3-2 of the TS, the response time for the Steam Generator Water Level--Low-Low reactor trip was changed from 1 2 seconds to s 2.0 seconds for Unit 1 and 3.5 seconds for Unit 2.
On May 15, 1985, the NRC issued Amendments 43 and 24 to change the McGuire Units 1 and 2 TS to reflect the second of several stages involved in continuing transition to use optimized fuel assemblies.
In Table 3.3-2 the Steam Generator Water Level--Low-Low response time was revised from s 2.0 seconds for Unit I and 3.5 seconds for Unit 2 to s 3.5 seconds for both units.
The response time remained as s 3.5 seconds until Amendments 128 and 110, issued on November 27, 1991, for the McGuire Unit 1, Cycle 8 reload. Among other changes associated with the reload, the only change to TS Table 3.3-2 was the deletion of the Power Range Neutron Flex Negative Rate Trip.
The deletion of this trip caused the renumbering of the rest of the trips in Table 3.3-2.
Page 2 of Table 3.3-2 was renumbered accordingly, but the response time for the Steam Generator Water Level--Low-Low was inadvertently changed back to s 2.0 seconds for Unit I and 3.5 seconds for Unit 2.
This change had not been requested nor detected during review of Amendments 128 and 110 by the licensee.
9405190365 740511 PDR ADOCK 05000369 P
.. The NRC issued Amendments 130 and 112 that changed the TS to reflect the reload of McGuire Unit 2, Cycle 8 with B&W fuel.
The change made the McGuire Unit 2 TS identical with Unit 1, as approved in Amendments I?S and 110.
The previous error on page 2 of Table 3.3-2 was not noticed by the licensee or the NRC staff.
The licensee has requested that the Steam Generator Water level--Low-Low response time be changed to 1 3.5 seconds since this change had already been approved in Amendments 43 and 24.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's submittal and concludes that the requested change is administrative in nature in that it restores the response time back to s 3.5 seconds as previously approved. Therefore, this change is acceptable.
1
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the North Carolina State official 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.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluent 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 (58 FR 41503 dated August 4,1993).
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, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such 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 public.
Principal Contributor: V. Nerses Date:
May 11, 1994