ML20065J700

Application for Amends to Licenses NPF-9 & NPF-17,revising Tech Spec 3/4.7.6, Control Area Ventilation Sys to Reduce Inplace Penetration & Bypass Leakage Limit Requirement to Less than 0.05%

ML20065J700
Person / Time
Site:	Mcguire, McGuire
Issue date:	10/24/1990
From:	Tucker H DUKE POWER CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20065J702	List: ML20065J700 ML20065J704
References
NUDOCS 9011140139
Download: ML20065J700 (6)

Text

5 g

i --

x 'g

, . ,m.

' :. Duke her Company - flu 8 TEw i

? . PO Bat 33998  : Vice President .  ;

Charlotte, NC 28242 * : Nuclear Production  ?

l (104)373 4531 ' ,;

1 DMEPOWER ;

October 24s 1990 l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-'

• ATTN: Document Control Desk ,

Washington, D.C.. 20555  :

ir

Subject:

McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and'21 j Docket Nos.;50-369,'and 50-370 .

Proposed Amtndment to Technical Specification  ;

3/4.7.6', Control Area Ventilation. System-

. Pursuant to 10 CFRl50.90,' find-attached proposed' amendments to facility operating licenses NPF-9 and NPF-17 for,McGuire Nuclear Station Units;1 and n 2, respectively.. The purpose of this amendaent request;l's.to revise the i subject Technical Specification'(TS) in plceu penetration 1and by pass--

leakage limit requirement from less than 1% to less than 0.05%.- J,

.t Attaciunent No.1 provides the description of' the proposed' changes, - '

justification =and safety analysis to support the change, and no significant. 3 hazards consideration discussion.'. Attachment No'. 2 providesia hand; marked j copy of-the proposed changes.

~

, {

This proposed revision will. place a more restrictive surveillance limitLin' the TSs, and has bsen implemented administratively pending NRC. approval lof-3 the TS amendment-request.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(b)(1), the appropriate North Carolina official is also being provided a copy of this amendment request.

I j Should there be any questions, please contact Paul Guill at'(704)!373-2844. j l

Very truly yours.

t' .

Hal-B. Tucker ;j t

SEL566 j L Attachments ,)

i .,

l xc: Mr. S.D. Ebneter, Regional Administrater <

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,-Regio'n II A 101 Marietta Street; NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 i

(

0 C011140139 901024 \ f 5'DR P

ADOCK 05000369 PDC g 1

l 3d- i

t

't ,

t

' ^

f U.S.* Nuclear. Regulatory Commission' ,

1:

• Document Control Desk-L October 24,:1990 Page 2

• t Mr. Dayne Brown. Chief f Radiation Protection Branch-Division of Facility Services ,

Department of Human Resources  ;

701 Barbour Drive a Raleigh,'N.C; 27603-2008:

Mr. T.A. Reed..NRC Project' Manager L

! Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation >

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission- -

! Washington, D.C.- 20555  ;

, Mr. P.K. Van Doorn-NRC Senior Resident Inspector 4 McGuire Nuclear Station b

I Y

b ~; [

1 o

\

) .

-i J

1 l

\ .

'i -

. ,i

.]

4

s. .

i > ,

s i

j,' ,

. c ,

U.$t Nuclear' Regulatory Commission i l- Document Control Desk

! October 24.-1990 l Page 3 ' >

IIAL B. TUCKER, being duly sworn, states that he is Vice 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 Commission this revision to the McGuire Nuclear Station License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17; and,'that all. . 1 statements and mattors-set forth therein are true'and correct to the best of his knowledge. I i

C ,f .V 4.e .

s llal B. Tucker,- Vice President-Nuclear Production Department I

f Subscribed and sworn to before me this 24th'~ day of October 1990.

$A Y KLaf'y PublicV> ' 7 s0s )

~

j My Commission Expires:

s b }

y ., ,

i.i gullifffs -+

l  % e*"*

!,g*goTAuy*g i l' .5 e s.

\ ,"UBL\ClIeiE m'}

. . . . . . . . . ..gy , -

a c0

,'>n,na%s# u >

+

U.Si Nuclear Regulatory Coreission.

• ~ J NrTN: Document ControlvDesk-October 24, 1990 Attachment No. 1; Duke Power Company . ,

McGuire Nuclear Station ~ JI Description / Technical Discussion, No Significant HazardsLAnalysis, and Environmental Impact-Analysis.

Description of Proposed Channes

, ' l' This proposed amendment to'the McGuire Technical < Specifications (TS) wouldt.

Change the in-place penetration and. bypass' leakage requirement'in TS 4.7.6.c.1, 4.7.6.f and'4~7.6.g from less than 1%.to'less than 0~.05%.

Technical Discuss' ion McGuire TS 3/4.7.6 req' u ires surveillance testing of the Control Room' Area-Ventilation (VC). system in-accordance with. Regulatory Guide 1.52 Revision 2,'

and that the in place penetration and bypass leakage shall;be.less-than'1%.

A review of this TS and Regulatory Guide l'.52 Revision:2 5 indicated that the Regulatory Guide had been clarified;by Generic Letter 83-13fwhich was issued' March 2, 1983. This clarification indicated that a 1% IIEPALin place l penetration and a 1% carbon bypass correspond' to.a !! EPA filter, and charcoal t absorber efficiency of 95%. The .McGuire VC system 'has: a llEPA: filter .and carbon efficiency rating 'of;99%, and Lassumes a llEPA filter and ; carbon absorber officiency of 99%? Therefore..the. existing TS requirement for anl in place penetration and bypass: leakage of;1ess than11% shouldl changed to 1 less than 0.~05%.'

Currently, in place penetration and : bypass = leakage,. testing for thelVC/YC l system is being performed using the proposed limit of71ess th'an 0.05%.-(This M limit has been implemented as an-administrative requirementfpending'NRC approval ~of the proposed TS revision. A review of McGuire..in place.

penetration and bypass leakage data from previousLtestsihastalso been _

j performed and all test results' met the' acceptance criteria of 0.05% except 1 for two tests. However, subsequent testing prior to the replacement of-those HEPA filters andi carbon did indicate the bypass leaka'ge was less than >!

0.05%: however, the 0.05%' criteria had not been used because thetactual-results obtained were within the existing TS111mitiof lessithan 1%.

1 A dose assessment was also~ performed assuming a 95%=decontaminationL . i officiency,iwhich is: implied;by the existing TS,Linstead of our' license i

~

basis of 9P% decontamination efficiency. The>results indicate a' potential E -

control room thyroid dose of . 63 Rem :which would-~ exceed; that '. allowed ~ by ..

. ;j Standard' Review Plan'6.4 (30~ Rem). Therefore,:the TS acceptance criteriai l; for in place pen.etration and bypass;1eakage for.the McGuire VCisystem should; be reduced to less than.0.05% basedron the;99% decontamination efficiency. j i: assumed-in the license basis.

• l 1

i k

l

, o

,g'.

i j

M:

U;Si Nuclear Regulatory Commission

- NITN: ' Document Contro11 Desk '

October 24, 1990-Attachment No. 1-No Significant Hazards Discussion Duke Power Company has determined that this amendment request does not- 1

(

involve a significant hazards consideration. 10 CFR 50.92 states that.a j proposed amendment involves no significant hazards _ considerations if i operation in accordance with the proposed amendment would:nott,(1) Involve-a j significant increase in the. probability or consequences.of an accident.

previously evaluated; or, (2) Create the possibility of a uew or:different ,

kind of-accident previously_ evaluated -or, (3) InvolveLa significant: ,

reduction in the margin of safety.

Operation of McGuire in accordance with the' proposed amendment would;not'i i involve a significant increase in the probability:or consequences of an _ :t accident previously evaluated. The request-to change the TS requirement.for

~

in place HEPA penetration and carbon bypass leakage from less.thanLl% to less than 0.05% constitutes a more restrictive requirement _-that will-further-ensure adequate filtration of the control room air.as required'to maintain I the control room habitable during all_ phases:of operation.; Additionally, the proposed revision complies with Regulatory _ Guide 1.52 Revision 2'as clarified by Generic Letter 83-13. Operating under this proposed chanr,e, ,

the VC system will continue to maintain proper temperature, cleanliness, and ,

[

pressurization in the control room during plant: operation, shutdown, post <

accident conditions, and all feasible weather conditions =. There will be no-hardware, system modifications, or operational changes:to the VC system as a ,

result of the proposed change.- Therefore, the probability-of an: accident previously evaluated will not increase. By placing the more restrictive j requirement on the VC system, the consequences of an accident, specifically-  ;

the control room dose, will be maintained below regulatory limits.-

• Operation of the McGuire facility.in accordance with the proposed amendment j would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident l previously evaluated. As stated above, this revision 11mposes a more l restrictive requirement that will-further ensure adequate filtration of the.

l control room. air as required to maintain-the control' room habitable.during all phases of operation. There will be no hardware, system modifications, i

or operational changes to the VC_ system as a result of the' proposed. change.

Therefore, no new or different accident scenarios are creatsd.

Operation of the McGuire facility in accordance with the~ proposed amendment would not involve-a'significant reduction'in the margin of safety. By-imposing the more restrictive ~regrirement, the proposed revision will ensure ,

the margin of safety provided by the ?ot decontamination efficient HEPA and

~

t carbon filters will be maintained. By decreasing the allowed HEPA i l

penetration and carbon bypass leakage from less than 1% to less than 0.05%, _H the. designed margin of safety will be. maintained, and reflected in the TS, 1

Based on the preceding discussion, Duke concludes that the proposed l

. amendment request does not involve a significant hazards consideration as -

defined by 10 CFR 50.92. 1 l

l l - -

l. l

, --o q

=

t U!S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission-ATTN:. Document Control-Desk-October 24,1990 ,

Attachment No. 1 ,

1 i

Environmental Impact Analysis The proposed TS amendment has been reviewed against-the_ criteria of 10 CFR, 51.22 for environmental considerations. Duke has concluded 1 that the proposed changes do not involve aLsignificant. hazards consideration,-'nor=

increase the types and amounts of effluents that may be released offsite. . ,

nor increase individual or cumulative: occupational' radiation. exposures. The -'

proposed TS revision will impose a more restrictive requirement;thatLwill; ensure control room doses are maintained below limits specified in Standard-_  ;

Review Plan 6.4. Therefore, the proposed TS changes meetLthe criteria'given. .;

in 10 CFR 51.22 (c)(9) for a categorical exclusion from.the requirement for' an Environmental Impact Statement.  ;

.h

.i l

L.

l l

1 f

f'