ML20080R686
| ML20080R686 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 10/06/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20080R652 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8310170736 | |
| Download: ML20080R686 (2) | |
Text
,
r
~
4 Ly 9:
cf
=
i SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF h0 CLEAR REACTOR REGULATION PROPOSED CHANGES TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS McGUIRE huCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 INTRODUCTION By letter dated September 2, 1983 Duke Power Company requested amendments to Appendix A of Operating Licenses NPF-9 and HPF-17. The proposed change involves Specification 3.7.7, " Auxiliary Building Filtered Ventilation Exhaust System." If that system becomes and remains inoperable, the existing technical specifications require that the plant (1) be in hot standby within 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> and (2) be in cold shutdown within 60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br />. The proposed change would extend the permitted time in hot standby to 11:59 p.m. September 7, 1983.
The function of the Auxiliary Building Filtered Ventilation Exhaust System (VA) is to filter exnaust gases frcn areas contair.ing ECCS equipment. These gases might be contaminated by radioactive materials leaked from the ECCS equipment following a LOCA.
The need for the change in the technical specification arose when the charcoal in the Unit 1 VA failed the routine surveillance test required by Technical Specifica-tion 4.7.7.b.2.
Failing this test means that the VA must be declared inoperable until the charcoal can be replaced.
Charcoal replacement cannot be accomplished in the allotted 60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br /> so the unit must be taken to cold shutdown.
Cold shutdown is und=sirable because it would extena the outage at least 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> and because it imposes an additional thermal cycle on the core. Duke Power Company concluded that the only practicable solution was to request a change in the technical specifica-tions.
EVALUATION The proposed chan',e in the technical specifications does not have the effect of removing the VA filtration because:
1.
The change would be in effect for only a few days for charcoal replacement.
2.
The change would have no influence until after the reactor has been shut down for at least 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br />.
3.
The VA would be isolated so ECCS area effluent would be released through the VA for the other unit.
Thus the probability is very small that a LOCA would occur during the proposed extension of the hot standby period and, even if such a LOCA did occur with the VA inonerable the resulting dntet wnuld nnt inerpate heranto the rolpato wnnld ha "CO
'"N c
8310170736 831006 PDR ADOCK 05000369 w e..
.P.,,,,,.... _., _ _
PDR OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- "3""*
-4 *247
- n.,
~
7- -
1j /
?!
~&
%Q w
y 2.:
- FINAL NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION (SHC) DETERMINATION i
The Commission made a proposed determination that these amendments involve no SHC and consulted with the State of North Carolina.
The State of North Carolina did not have any comments.
Based on the Commission's final review and the absence of State comments, the Commission has made a final detenaination that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION We have determined that the amendments do not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any signif-icant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further con-cluded that the amendments involve an action which is insignificant from the stand-point of em f renmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(d)(4), that an environ-mental impact statement or negative declaration arid environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
CONCLUSION 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 common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
C. Stahle, Licensing Branch No. 4, DL W. Gam;aill, Meteorology and Effluent Treatment Branch, DSI C. Willis, Heteorology and Effluent Treatment Branch, DSI Date: October 6, 1983 1
I
"'c'>
'"""^"'>
^ " >
NRC FORM 318 HO'8CINRCM O240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- "5 " "8 2-* w24 7