ML20033F487
| ML20033F487 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 03/13/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033F486 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9003210207 | |
| Download: ML20033F487 (3) | |
Text
,
$[
'o g'
UNITED STATES
]"
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5-jp t WASHINGTON, D C. 20555 k.u.. /
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF HilCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.104TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-9 A D AMENDMENT NO. 86 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-17 J
DUKE POWER' COMPANY DOCKETS NOS. 50-369 AND 50-370 t1CGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION. UNITS 1 AND 2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated December 21, 1989, Duke Power Company (the licensee) proposed l
changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) for_ McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2.
The proposed changes remove the provision of Specification 4.0.2 that limits the combined time intervals for three consecutive suweil-lances to less than 3.25 times the specified interval.
Guidanm on this proposed change to the TSs was provided to all power reactor licensees and applicants by Generic Letter 89-14 dated August 21, 1989.
2.0 EVALUATION Specificatico 4.0.2 inclu.1es the provision that allows a surveillance interval to be extended by 25 percent of the specifieo time interval, This extension provides flexibility for scheouling'the performance of surveillances and to permit consiotration of p' ant operating conditiens that may not be suitable for conducting a surveiilence at the specified time interval. Such operating conditions include transient plant operation or ongoing surveillance or maintenance activities.
!pecification 4.0.2 further limits the allowance for extending surveillance in*,ervals by requiring that the contined tire interval for any three consecutive surveillances not exceed 3.25 times the specified time interval.
The purpose of this provision is' to assure that surveillances are not extended repeatedly as an operational convenience to provide an overall increase in the surveillance interval.
Experience has shown that the month surveillance interval, with 'the provision to extend it by 25 percent, is usually sufficient to accomodate normal variations in the length of a fuel cycle.
However, the hRC staff has L
routinely granteo requests for one-time exceptions to the 3.25 limit on extencing refueling surveillances because the risk to safety is low in contrast to the alternative of a forced shutdown to perform these surveillances. There-fore, the 3.25 limitation on extending surveillances has not been a practical limit on the use of the 25-percent allowance for extending surveillances that are performed on a refueling outage basis.
Jjp2gg% h, p
g.
w
=
-2 Extending surveillance intervals during plant operation can also result in a benefit to safety when a scheduled surveillance is due at a time that is not suitable for conducting the surveillance. This may occur when transient plant operating conditions exist or when safety systems are out of service for maintenance or other surveillance activities.
In such cases, the benefit to safety of extending a surveillance interval would exceed any safety benefit derived by limiting the use of the 25-percent allowance to extend a surveillance.
Furthermore, there is the administrative burden associated with tracking the use of the 25-percent allowance to ensure compliance with the 3.25 limit.
In view of these findings, the NRC staff concluded that Specification 4.0.2 should be changed to remove the 3.25 limit for all surveillances because its removal will have an overall positive effect on safety. The guidance provided in Generic Letter 89-14 included the following change to this specification and removes the 3.25 limit on three consecutive surveillances with the following statement:
"4.02 Each Surveillance Requirement shall be performed within the specified surveillance interval with a maximum allowable extension not to exceed 25 percent of the specified surveillance interval."
Ir Fidition, the Bases of this specification were updated to reflect this chiny. The revised Bases continue to note that it is not the intent of the allMnce for extending surveillance intervals that it be used repeatedly crei;! as an operational convenience to extend surveillance intervals beyond that specified.
The licensee has proposed changes to Specification 4.0.2 that are consistent with the guidance provided in Generic Letter 89-14, as noted above.
On the basis of its revfew of this matter, the NRC staff finds that the above changes to the TSs for FcGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, are acceptable.
3.0 ENVIR0 MENT 1!_ CONSIDERATION These amendments involve changes in requirements with respect to the use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20-and changes in surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no signi-ficant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has bm no public comment on such finding. 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 these amendments, i
. c
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Comission's determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration was published in the Federal Register (55 FR 4267) on February 7,1990. The Comission consulted with the State of North Carolina.
No public comments were received, and the State of North 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 these amendments will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the ptblic.
Principal Contributors:
Thomas G. Dunning, OTSB/DOEA D. Hood, PD#11-3/0RP-1/II Dated: March 13, 1990 I
l I
l l
-- ---