ML20035D566
| ML20035D566 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Mcguire, Catawba, McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 04/07/1993 |
| From: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20035D570 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9304130310 | |
| Download: ML20035D566 (8) | |
Text
3 n
'1 Duke Mer Company H<t R Ttat:R l
PO Box 1006 Senior Vice President Charlotte. NC28201 L Nuclear Genemtion
'l (704)382 4 531-DUKEPOWER i
April 7, 1993 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, D.C.
20555 j
Subject:
McGuire Nuclear Station Units 1 &2 Docket Nos. 50-369,370 Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 &2 Docket Nos. 50-413,414 Revised the Dietance for Determination of Posting of High Radiation Areas, Relocation of the Old 10 CFR 20.203 (c) (2) Requirements to the New 10 CFR 20.1601(a), Relocation of the Old 10 CFR 20.407 Requirements to the New 10 CFR 20.2206(b) and Relocation of the Old 10 CPR 20.106 Requirements to the New 10 CFR 20.1302 i
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90, please find attached proposed li;ense amendments to facility operating licenses HPF-9 and NPF-17 for i
McGuire Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2, respectively, and NPF-35 and NPF-52 for Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1
and 2,
respectively.
This proposed technical specification (TS) revision contains the following proposed changes:
1.
Relocation of the old 10 CFR 20.203 (c) (2) requirements to the new 10 CFR 20.1601(a) 2.
P' location of the old 10 CFR 20.407 l
requirements to the new 10 CFR 20.2206(b) 3.
Relocation of the old 10 CFR 20.106 requirements to the new 10 CFR 20.1302 (This reference to 20.106 was omitted in the original TS submitta] concerning 10 CFR 20 changes for Catawba Nuclear Station) 4.
Revise the distance at which dose rates are measured in order to determine whether an area will be posted as a high radiation area.
0 ? q r :-
19, bud j 3 9304130310 930407 D
j PDR ADOCK 03000369 gi f
p PDR sn,,w n uw
4 U.
S.
NRC April 7, 1993 Page 2 Attachment I provides a technical discussion, no significant hazards analysis, and environmental impact analysis supporting these proposed revisions.
The proposed changes to the station TSs-in the form of pen and ink marked pages are included as Attachment II.
The NRC requires that licensees implement the new 10 CFR 20 no later than January 1, 1994 ; however, Duke Power implemented the new 10 CFR 20 on January 1, 1993 and the proposed TS changes are the balance of the changes needed to eliminate any administrative inconsistencies between actual practices at the nuclear stations and their technical specifications.
Duke Power request a timely review and approval of the proposed technical specification revisions.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(b) (1), a copy of this amendment request has been provided to the appropriatc North Carolina and South Carolina state officials.
If you have any questions concerning the enclosed information, please call A.D. Jones-Young at (704) 382-3154.
Very truly yours, y
3G,/^
/.OiW k.
/h&'./n C
H.
B.
Tucker Senior Vice President Nuclear Generation r
4 adj/2TSC3 Attachments 4
1
L E
i l
l
- l l
l --
-U.
S.
NRC April 7, 1993
'l Page 3 xc:
S.
D.-Ebneter Regional Administrator, Region II T. A. Reed, ONRR l
R.
E. Martin, ONRR' P.
K. Vandoorn Senior Resident Inspector (MNS)
W.
T. Orders Senior Resident Inspector (CNS)
Dayne Brown, Chief' Division of Radiation Protection P.
O.
Box 27687 t
Raleigh, N.C.
27611~7687 j
Heyward Shealy Bureau of Radiological Health i
S.C.
Department of Health and Environmental Control i
2600 Bull Street
- Columbia, S.C.
29201 i
I i
)
I j
.I
i
+
)
U.
S.
NRC April 7, 1993' Page 4 H.
B.
Tucker, being duly sworn, states that he is Senior Vice l
4 President of Duke Power Company; that he is authorized on the part of said company to sign and file with the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory _
l Commission these revisions to the McGuire Nuclear Station License i
Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17, and Catawba Nuclear Station License Nos.
NPF-35 and NPF-52; and, that all statements and matters set forth therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge.
i
(
_ c..
f x.
.7 _.
'h.f' /h, /. r6fkn c'
H.
B.
Tucker, Senior Vice President i
l Subscribed and sworn to before me this seventh day of April 1993.
s i
Yr 'JN Y bc2b-n J Rotary Public' > '.,/
j My Commission Expires:
i Wiso r/ /9W/
-x-i i
SQ,,,o ' n
- n r o,
s (g...N L !;gl,;%...... gs, 1
.w
' H U I A,, *$k
[
Eci
- .3 i T.,
Ti L 1C,! *5
' 'f. **...,,,,,..** v 3 i '?.
f
, -ef i
h a
t h
/,
- au.
%.,,,, m oo
.l t
1 ATTACHMENT I i
DUKE POWER COMPANY CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION McGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION Technical Discussion, No Significant Hazards and Environmental Impact Analysis l
Technical Discussion The purpose of the proposed amendment requests for Catawba and
[
McGuire Nuclear Stations are to:
l 1.
Relocate the old 10 CFR 20.203 (c) (2) requirements to the f
new 10 CFR 20.1601(a) 2.
Relocate the old 10 CFR 20.407 requirements to the new 10 CFR 20.2206(b) i 3.
Relocate the old 10 CFR 20.106 requirements to the new 10 CFR 20.1302 (This reference to 20.106 was omitted in the original TS submittal concerning 10 CFR 20 changes for Catawba Nuclear Station) 4.
Revise the distance at which dose rates are measured in order to determine whether an area will be posted as a high radiation area The bases for these changes are provid.ed in the following paragraphs.
1.
Relocate the old 10 CFR 20.203 (c) (2) requirements
'l to the new 10 CFR 20.1601(a) f This cdministrative change is being made to reflect that the requirements in the old 10 CFR 20.203 (c) (2) are now located in the new 10 CFR 20.1601(a).
2.
Relocate the old 10 CFR 20.407 requirements to the new 10 CFR 20.2206(b) l This administrative change is being made to reflect that the requirements in the old 10 CFR 20.407 are now located in the new 10 CFR 20.2206(b).
P i
Attachment I l
April 7, 1993 Page 2 3.
Relocate the old 10 CFR 20.106 requirements to the new 10 CFR 20.1302 (This reference to 20.106 was omitted in the original TS submittal concerning 10 CFR 20 changes for Catawba Nuclear Station)
This administrative change is being made to reflect that the requirements in the old 10 CFR 20.106 are now located in the new 10 CFR 20.1302.
4.
Revise the distance at which dose rates are measured in order to determine whether an area vill be posted as a high radiation area The proposed change to the distance at which dose rates are measured in order to determine whether the intensity of radiation is equal to or less than 1000 mrem /hr is being made as a result of the new 10 CFR 20 requirements.
The distance from the radiation source or from any surface which radiation penetrates is peing changed from 45 cm (18 in.) to 3 0 cm (12 in.).
This change is more conservative in its effect on worker protection in that it lowers the orker's stay time in the area and minimizes the worker's w
exposure.
No Significant Hazards Analysis 10 CFR 50.91 requires that the following analysis be provided concerning whether the proposed amendment requests involved a significant hazards consideration as defined in 10 CFR 50.92.
Standards for determination that an amendment request ooes not involve a significant hazards consideration are if operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not:
1)
Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or, 2)
Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated; or, 3)
Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
1.
Relocate the old 10 CFR 20.203 (c) (2) requirements to the new 10 CFR 20.1601(a)
The proposed revision to relocate the old 10 CFR 20.203 (c) (2) requirements to the new 10 CFR 20.1601(a) will not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because there sill be no change in the types and amounts of effluents that will be released, nor will there be a r.
increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposures.
t
Attachment I April 7, 1993 Page 3 Relocation of the old 10 CFR 20.203 (c) (2) requirements to the new 10 CFR 20.1601(a) will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated because the revision is administrative and will not change the types and amounts of effluents that will be released.
l The proposed revision will not reduce a margin of safety because 'it is administrative in nature.
Accordingly, this proposed change does not involve a significant hazard.
2.
Relocate the old 10 CFR 20.407 requirements to the new 10 CFR 20.2206(b)
The proposed revision to relocate the old 10 CFR 20.407 requirements to the new 10 CFR 20.2206(b) will not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because there will be no change in the types and amounts of effluents that will be released, nor will there be an increase in individual or cumulative occupational l
radiation exposures.
Relocation of the old 10 CFR 20.407 requirements to the new 10 CFR 20.2206(b) will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated because the revision is administrative and will not change the types and amounts of effluents that will be released.
t The proposed revision will not reduce a margin of safety because it is administrative in nature.
Accordingly, this proposed change does not involve a significant hazard.
3.
Relocate the old 10 CFR 20.106 requirements to the new 10 CFR 20.1302 (This reference to 20.106 was omitted in the original TS submittal concerning 10 CFR 20 changes for Catawba Nuclear Station)
The proposed revision to relocate the old 10 CFR 20.106 requirements to the new 10 CFR 20.1302 will not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because there will be no change in the types and amounts of effluents that will be released, nor will there be an increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposures.
Relocation of the old 10 CFR 20.106 requirements to the new 10 CFR 20.1302 will not create the possibility of a new or different kind I
Attachment I April 7, 1993 Page 4 of accident from any previously evaluated because the revision is administrative and will not change the types and amounts of.
effluents that will be released.
The proposed revision will not reduce a margin of safety because it is administrative in nature.
Accordingly, this proposed change does not involve a significant hazard.
4.
Revise the Gistance at which dose rates are measured in i
order to determine whether an area will be posted as e
[
The proposed revision to the distance at which dose rates are measured from the radiation source or surface will not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously.cv lu'ted because there will be no increase in individual or cumulative occmpational radiation exposures.
The change in distance is conservative in its effect on worker protection.
r Implementation of the more conservative distance will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The margin of safety is not reduced Lecause the change in distance from 18 in. to 12 in, from the radiation source or surface will reduce the worker's stay time in the area and therefore minimize exposure.
Accordingly, this proposed change does not involve a significant hazard.
Environmental Impact Analysis 4
The proposed TS amendments have been reviewed against the criteria of 10 CFR 51.22 for environmental considerations.
The proposed amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration, nor j
increase individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure, and there is no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents.
The relocation of the 20.203 (c) (2) requirements to 20.1601(a), the 20.407 requirements to 20.2206(b) and the 20.106 requirements to 20.1302 are administrative changes.
The change in distance from the radiation source from 18 in. to 12 in. is conservative in its effect on worker protection.
Therefore, the proposed TS amendments meet the criteria given in 10 CFR 51. 22 (c) (9) for a categorical exclusion from the requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement.