ML20065J700
| 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: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9011140139 | |
| Download: ML20065J700 (6) | |
Text
'g 5
i --
g x
,m.
' :. Duke her Company -
flu 8 TEw i
- Vice President.
?
PO Bat 33998 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-the TS amendment-request.
3 Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(b)(1), the appropriate North Carolina official is I
also being provided a copy of this amendment request.
j Should there be any questions, please contact Paul Guill at'(704)!373-2844.
j l
Very truly yours.
t' Hal-B. Tucker
- j tj SEL566 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 1
\\
f 5'DR ADOCK 05000369 l 3d-i P
PDC g
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
j,'
i
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 s0s )
KLaf'y PublicV> ' 7
~
j My Commission Expires:
s b
}
y.,
i.i gullifffs
-+
l e * " *
!,g*goTAuy*g i
\\
,"UBL\\ClIeiE l'
.5 e s.
m'}
...........gy
,'>n,na%s#
a c0u
+
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' ires surveillance testing of the Control Room' Area-u 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 indicated that the 5
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 1
j performed and all test results' met the' acceptance criteria of 0.05% except 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%.
A dose assessment was also~ performed assuming a 95%=decontaminationL.
1
~
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 M:
j
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 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
. amendment request does not involve a significant hazards consideration as defined by 10 CFR 50.92.
1,
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'