ML20097G822
| ML20097G822 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1992 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20097G812 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9206170321 | |
| Download: ML20097G822 (2) | |
Text
_ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - - -
gmoug
[*
'n UNITED STATES 5,
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[
WASHINoTON. O C. 20%$
o.
/
SAFETY EVALVATION BY THE OfflCE Of NVCLEAR REAC10R REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMD T NO. 133T0 FACill.IY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-2 AND AMENDMfftiT NO.11510 FAClllTY OPERATING LICENSE HPF-17 DUKE POWER COMPANY MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-369 AND 50-310
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated February 5, 1992, the Duke Power Company (the licensee) submitt M a request for changes to the McGui,e Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Technic l Specifications (TS).
The requested changes would revise the wording in TS Surveillance Requirements (SRs) 4.7.7.la.(2) and TS 4.7.7.lb. to correct an error regarding the acceptance criteria for methyl iodide penetration.
2.0 EVALUATION The staff, in its Safety Evaluation Report (SER) dated September 12, 1990 (TS Amendment No, 113 and No. 95 to facility Operating Licenses NPF-9 and NPF-17),
found a 10% methyl iodide penetration (corresponding to a methyl iodide removal efficiency of greater than or er,ual to 90%) for the carbon adsorber in the auxiliary building filtered ventilation exhaust system to be an tr,ceptable change for TS SRs 4.7.7.la.(2) and 4.7.7.lb.
The staff found this acceptance criteria to be acceptable based on the staff's independent offsite dose calculation that assumed a carbon filter removal efficiency of 70% for elemental iodine and 50% removal efficiency for organic iodide (refer to the staff's September 12, 1990, SER).
The current proposed TS amendments revise SR 4.7.7.1 to correctly reflect the staff's findings in TS Amendments 113 and 95 for McGuire Units 1 and 2.
As such, the proposed changes are acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
in accordance with the Commission's regulations, the North Carolina State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments.
The State of ficial had no comments.
9206170321 920611 ADOCK0500g9 DR
. 4.0 D1Y1RONMENTAL CONSIDERATION The amendments change surveillance requirements.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (57 FR 13129, dated April 15, 1992).
Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forih in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has 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, (2) such (i
activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
T. A. Reed, NRR/PDil-3 Uate: June 11, 1992
- _ - - _.