ML20059G764
| ML20059G764 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 08/28/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059G757 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9009130137 | |
| Download: ML20059G764 (3) | |
Text
- , --
. [-
k-UNITED STATES p
- ' 4 NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION t3-Q
.i wasniwotow. o. c. rosss s
(.....,/
I SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.111 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-9 AND AMENDMENT NO. 93 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-17 DUKE POWER COMPANY pp0CKETNOS.50-369AND50-370 MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATICN, UNITS 1 AND 2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
(thelicensee) proposed By letter of February 20,19$0, Duke Power Company (1Ss) for McGuire Nuclear amendments to change the Technical Specifications Units 1 and 2.
The proposed change would add a footnote to the Station}ance requirenents of TS 4.6.1.2a.
surve11 The footnote would state "The
- Type A test on Unit I which is scheduled for the 10-year ISI outage (E0C 7 1991)willbeperformedinster,dduringtheEOC6 outage (1990). The 40 2 10-month interval will be maintained. This constitutes an exemption to 10CFRE0,AppendixJ.ParagraphIII.D.1(a).
The proposed change (i.e., the new footnote) applies only to McGuire Unit 1.
McGuire Unit 2 is affected by th9 amendments only administratively because it shares a cousnon TS document with Unit 1.
The licensee's letter of February 20, 1990, also requested an cxemption from therequirementsof10CFRPart50,AppendixJ,SectionIll.D.I.(a)regarding the periodic Type A (containment integrated leat rate test) test schedule for McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 1.
The request is limited to a one-time exemption for the scheduling of the third periodic Type A test. Appendix J requires that this test be performed during the 10-year inservice inspection (ISI) outage. The requested exemption would permit continued pertormance of Type A testing at the 40 10-nonth 'iterval presently required by the plant TSs with three tests required every 10 yebrs.
The proposed change would only relieve the licensee f rom the requirement of a Type A test during the first 10-year ISI outage. During the second 10-year service period, the licensee will be able to schedule the third Type A test to correspond with the ISI' outage as required by Appendix J.
2.0 EVALUATION TS 4.6.1.2 specifies test schedule requirements for demonstrating containment leakage rates determined in conforn.6nce with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J.
TS 9009130137 90o929
)
hDR ADOCK 05000369 PDC
m p.
e 2-p 4.6.1.2a includes requirements that a set of 'Three Type A tests (Overall Integrated Containment Leakage Rate) shall be conducted at 40110-month intervals during shutdown... during each 10-year service period. The third test of each set shall be conducted curing the shutdown for the 10-year plant inservice inspection." TS 4.6.1.fa is a repect of Section Ill.D.1.(a) of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50, except that the "40 a 10 month interval" in the TS is replaced by a more general requirement of "approximately equal intervals" in Appendix J.
The licensee submitted a proposed Type A test scheouled based on a 40 +
10-month interval as ree,uired by the McCuire TS. This schedule includes the tentative dates for Type A testing for the first two 10-year service periods.
As scheduled, the third periodic Type A test for McGuire Unit I will be performed duringtheEnd-of-Cycle 5(E0CC)refuelingoutagein1990. The following test, which would be the first test in the second 10-year service perioo, would be perforned during the E0C 9 refueling outage in 1994.
By the proposed schedule, the test interval of 40 2 10 months would be maintained in accordance with the TSs.
The McGuire TS requirements presently conflict with requirenents for the scheduled performance of the Type A testing delineated in 10 CFR part 50, Appendix 0, for performing the third Type A leak rate testing during the 10-year ISI. The first 10-year 151 for McGuire Unit 1 is scheduled to occur during the EOC 7 refueling outage. Performing the test at that tine would exceed the 50-month maximum intervr1 allowed by the TSs.
Type A testing during both.EOC 6 and E0C 7 would be required to comply with Section Ill.D.I.(a) of
-Appendix J.
However, the NRC has granted an exemption for Unit I which makes these successive tests unnecessary.
The proposed TS change and exemption allow nearly caual intervals to be maintained between tests, keep the testing within the 40 1 10-month interval, and will eventually result in the sixth periodic test occurring during the l
second 10-year ISI outage. As noted in the associated exemption, the NRC staff considers the requitement that the third test occur during the 10-year ISI l
l outage to be of minimal safety significance when compared to the actual L
interval between tests. The licensee's proposal nair.tains the appropriate interval between tests for ensuring containment leakage integrity. As further evidence of this, the staff has proposed a revision to Appendix J (51 FR l
L 39538, October 29,1986) that would eliminate the requirement that the third
.lype A test per 10-year service period coincide with the 10-year ISI.
The proposed TS change will not adversely impact containment integrity nor the testing to deteimine containment integrity. The staff, therefore, finds the requested TS change to be acceptable.
3.0 ENVIPONMENT/il CONSIDEMTION j
These amendments involve a change in surveillance requirements. The staff has I
determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significt.nt change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in inuividual or cumulative o
l
r c,
.* 3
. occupational radiation exposure. The NRC staff has previously issued a proposed fincing that the amendcents involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has beer, no public cons:ent on such finding.
Accordingly, the anendments meet the eligibility criteria f or categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statenent or environmental assessnent need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendnents.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Consnission's proposed determination that the amendnents involve no significant hazards consideration was published in the Federal Register (55FR10532)onMarch 21, 1990. The Consnission consulted with tile State of L
No public cons:ents were received, and the State 'of North Carolina did not have any conenents.
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will i
not be endangered by operation in the proposed renner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in con 4pliance with the Consnission's regulations, and the issuance of ~ these amenduents will r,ct be inimical to the corrnon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
D. Hood, PD#11-3/DRP-1/II Dated:
August 28, 1990 l-i
..