ML20087C018
| ML20087C018 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 02/29/1984 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20087C016 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8403120216 | |
| Download: ML20087C018 (4) | |
Text
______________________
[pa ua k UNITED STATES uq j
y g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%...../
SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 29 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-9 AND TO AMENDMENT NO.10 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-17 DUV,E POWER COMPANY INTRODUCTION In a letter dated August 2,1983, the licensee submitted a number of proposed changes to the Technical Specifications for the McGuire Nuclear Station. The submittal included changes relating to (1) response time requirements for steamline isolation valves and reactor trip system steam generator water low-low level trip function, (2) fire protection sprinkler system valve surveillance recuirements, (3) snubber surveillance requirements and (41 correction to administrative and typographical changes.
EVALUATION Steanline Isolation Valves /Stean Generator level Trip Technical Specification Table 3.3-5, items 4(h), 5(c) and 8, specify the steam-line isolation response time. The licensee has proposed to change the response time limit for steamline isolation from
<9 seconds to
<7 seconds. This change will make the Technical SoecificatTon consistent with the McGuire Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Chapter 6 steamline break containment analysis and the Chapter 15 steamline break core analysis assumptions. Because the proposed change involves operation under a more restrictive requirement than was previously specified, and is consistent with the FSAR analyses, the staff finds the proposed change acceptable.
Item 13 of Table 3.3-1 of the McGuire Technical Specifications includes re-cuirenents for operation with an inoperable channel of steam generator level instrumentation. The licensee has proposed to change the action statement from 7 to 6.
Action statement 7 requires an inoperable channel' to be placed in the tripped condition within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and only permits centinued operation until the next required surveillance test fcr these channels. With an inoperable channel tripped, surveillance testing of tb remaining channels cannot be performed since testing places a channel in trip. Action Statement 6 allows an inoperable channel to be placed in the' bypassed condition up to 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> for surveillance testing of the other channels. The staff finds this change to be acceptable since it is consistent with the action statement in l
Table 3.3-3 on Engineered Safety Features Actuation System for the same instrument channels tnd for the similer channels of the Reactor' Trip System for which this action statement applies.
The licensea has also proposed to add a phrase "and specification 4.3.2.1" at the end of action statement number 6 on page 3/4 3-7 and action statenent number 19 on page 3/4 3-74, whir.h would clarify tha fact that some of the instrumentation perfoms 0Jal functinns for reactor trip and engineered safety features actuation. The staff finds this clarification to be acceptable.
8403120216 840229 PDR ADOCK 030C0369 P
. Fire Protectinn Sprinkler System The fire protection sprinkler system valve surveillance reauirement, section 4.7.10.2.a of the Technical Specification currently requires verifica-tion at least once per 31 days that each valve in the flow path of a spray or sprinkler systen is in-its correct position. The licensee proposes to verify the position of nine of these valves which are located in areas inaccessible during plant operation at least once every 18 months.
Justification for the proposed change is based on the following:
- a. Each valve is either locked in the current position or electrically supervised in accordance with NUREG-0800. Therefore, inadvertent misposition of these valves is unlikely.
- b. Containment entry is controlled and limited. Therefore, the opportu-7 nity to misposition these valves is minimized.
Because each valve is supervised in the correct position and containment entry
)
is controlled and limited, which minimizes the opportunity to misposition these valves, we find that reasonable assurances exist that the valves will not be inadvertently mispositioned during an 18 month surveillence cycle. Based on our evaluation, we conclude that the proposed change is acceptable, Snubber Surveillance Safety-related mechanical snubbers are indicated in Technical Specif%ation Table 3.7-4b.
The Table allows the licensee to add or delete snubbers without prior 1.icense Amendment provided that a revision to the Table is included with the next license amendment request. The licensee proposes the d'letion of one small-size mechanical snubber on the Unit 2 diesel generator 16e oil system and one medium size snubber on the Unit 2 safety injection system. The piping mathematical model for the small-size snubber was reanalyzed by the licensee without tnis snubber in place according to ASME code requirement. The results of the analysis showed that allowable stresses can be met without the snubber.
The licensee also propose; to replace the medium size snubber with a rigid support. The rigid support will be designed to withstand seismic loading as necessary to compensate for the deleted snubber. The licensee has analyzed stresses caused by thermal movements and determined the stresses to be within acceptable linits'. This is an acceptable and approved procedute for snubber-
'l deletion / replacement and based on our evaluation we conclude that the propostd mechanical snubber changes in Table 3.7-4b are acceptable.
Administrative and Typooraphical Chanoes
~
The licensee has proposed correcting several Technical Specification administrative and typographical errors. Briefly these changes are described below.
Specification 3.4.9.1.a (page 3/4 4-30) is proposed to be changed due to an inconsistency with Figure 3.4-2b.
This figure is based upon a maximum l
heatup rate for Unit 2 of 60*F per hour.
Table 4.3-9, Note (2) (page 3/4 3-77) is proposed to be changed due to an
4
- administrative error. The current note (2) contains the word "and" after part c which implies that part d is missing.
In fact, part d in the Standardized Technical Specifications was intentionally deleted when the McGuire document was developed because it aid not apply.
Two typographical errors in Table 3.7-5 (page 3/4 7-38) ere proposed to be corrected as shown.
The ACTION section of Specification 3.7.12 (page 3/4 7-42) is proposed to be revised to prorarly reference the temperature limits shown in Table 3.7-6 and to be consistent with the LCO.
The proposed change to Specification 3.10.2 (page 3/4 10-2) involves de-leting a re'erence to Specification 3.1.3.7 which does not exist.
Based on our review of these matters, we conclude that the proposed changes are acceptable.
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 significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendments involve an a:: tion which is insignificant from the r.tandpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(d)(4),
that an environmental impact statement or negctive declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of these 4
amendments.
CONCLUSION The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards constderation which was published in the Federal Register (48 FR 49717) on October 27, 1983, and consulted with the state of North Carolina.
No public comments were received, and the state of North Carolina did not have any ccmments.
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the publig will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations and W issuance of thera amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors: Ralph Birkel, licensing Branch No. 4, DL J. Stang, Chemical Engineering Branch, DE H. Li, Instrumentation and Control Systems Branch, DSI Dated: February 29, 1984
~+
w.-
l February 29, 1984 AMENDMENT NO. 29 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF McGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1 l
AMENDMENT NO.10T0 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF McGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2 1
DISTRIBUTION:
4 i(Ni5$$lkS$I9blN9lSi07%'
NRC PDR Local PCr, NSIC LB #4 r/f i
E. Adensam R. Birkel M. Duncan Attorney, OELD R. Diggs, ADM i
T. Barnhart (8)
ACRS (16)
E. L. Jordan, DE0A:Ia!
J. M. Taylor, DRP:IAE L. J. Harmon, I&E File D. Brinkman l
)
i png1G11AT D UUIGUI U' c-g i
Caetiflod B7
^ Agt~
-