ML20113F155
| ML20113F155 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 07/02/1996 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20113F152 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9607080380 | |
| Download: ML20113F155 (2) | |
Text
i 0D
, f
- Coq $%
e d
UNITED STATES j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2061
1.0 INTRODUCTION
l By letter dated December 12, 1995, as supplemented by letter dated June 10, 1996,. Duke Power Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications (TS).
The requested changes would revise the absolute value in Axial Flux Difference (AFD) Equations to reflect the proper AFD limit reduction in the current TS.
During the processing of a TS amendment (Amendments 128/110 dated November 27, 1991), the licensee inadvertently made a typographical error and omitted the absolute value symbol on certain terms of the formula for the McGuire AFD Equations. The variance in the formula went undetected by the licensee p.arsonnel and the NRC throughout the submittal's review and approval by the NRC and it remained undetected until the latter part of 1995. However, the plant procedures in effect always implemented the AFD limit reduction correctly because the formula in the procedure did not contain this typographical error. The licensee submitted, by letter dated December 12, 1995, as supplemented by letter dated June 10, 1996, a proposed change to correct the inadvertent error in the formula in the TS.
2.0 EVALUATION The formula in the TS is for monitoring core peaking factors to ensure accident analysis assumptions are satisfied during unit operation.
The way this is done is by assuring that when the core peaking factor exceeds the TS surveillance limit the formula will reduce the core operating space so that any accident will remain within the bounds of the analysis. The use of absolute values for certain terms in the formula will ensure the proper reduction of operating space is reached.
3.0 STAFF CONCLUSION The staff finds that the licensee's request for approval of the TS change s
because of the inadvertent error is acceptable for the reasons stated above.
9607080380 960702 PDR ADOCK 05000369 P
L e
~2-
4.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Comission's regulations, the North Carolina State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments change surveillance requirements.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no l
significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no si occupational radiation exposure.gnificant increase in individual or cumulative The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (61 FR l
18166 dated April 24,1996). Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility j
criteria for categorical exclusion set forth 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.
l l
6.0 CONCLUSION
l The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, i
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 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:
V. Nerses Date:
July 2, 1996 l
l L
i i
3 l
i i
. -