ML20150D013
| ML20150D013 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 07/05/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150D011 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8807130256 | |
| Download: ML20150D013 (2) | |
Text
-.
~
4 i
o,,
UNITED STATES
+[
gL A
AR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20665 5
%.....)
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0. 88 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-9 AND AMENDMENT N0. 69 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-17 DUKE POWER COMPANY DOCKET N05. 50-369 AND 50-370 MCGUIRENUCLEARSTATIONdNHS1AND_2 INTRODUCTION By letter dated Februe.'- 17, 1987, and revised June 3, 1988, Duke Power Company (the licensee) yproposed amendments to make several changes to the McGuire Technical Specifications (TS). The changes, in part, are:
(1) The TS Index is updated to achieve consistency with changes authorized by the Commission by prior amendments.
(2) Reference to Figure 3.1-2, which had been lef t blank pending NRC approval of three-loop operation, is deleted from TS 3.1.3.6 for consistency with TS
(
3.4.1.1 which prohibits part-loop operation, and because (as noted during prior Amendments 65 and 46) no NRC approval of three-loop operation is pending.
(3)
In the Table Notation for TS Table 4.3.1, Item (9), the term "Boron Dilution Alarm" is changed to "High Flux at Shutdown Alarm." This is a change in nomenclature only, to provide for consistency with plant terminology.
(4)
In Table 3.3-3, Item 7.e, the lef t-hand margin of the statement "See Item I
I above for all safety injection initiating functions and requirements" is i
shifted to the right in order to clarify that the statement applies only to Item 7.e and not to the entire page on which it appears.
This change therefore corrects an error in the location of the statement.
(5) The positions of Items 10.b and 10.c in TS Surveillance Table 4.3-2 are exchanged for consistency with their order in the corresponding LCO Tables 3.3-3 and 3.3-4.
l (6) Under Item 18 "Reactor Vessel Level Instrumentation" of both TS Tables l
3.3-10 and 4.3-7, the term "Wide Range" is renamed "Dynamic Head (D/P)
Range," and the term "Narrow Ri nge" is renamed "Lower Range." These are l
changes in nomenclature only and provide for consistency with plant terminology. Also, two obsolete footnotes for Table 3.3-10 (which applied only until the end of the first refueling outage following 1/86 for each unit, or until the beginning of Cycle 4 for Unit I and Cycle 3 for Unit 2) are i
deleted.
8807130256 880705 l
PDR ADOCK 05000369 P
PDC l
E o
'4 (7) Erroneous valve train designations in TS Table 3.6-2 resulting from CF-135)phical error (i.e., designations for valve CF-153 rather than Valve typogra associated with previous Amendments 63 and 44 are corrected.
Because the June 3, 1988, submittal clarified certain aspects of the
-original request, the substance of the changes noticed in the Federal Register and the proposed no significant hazards determination were not aTf ected.
Other changes in the licensee's submittal will be handled separately.
EVALUATION The staff has reviewed the licen.iee's proposed changes, noted above, and finds that they are purely administrative. Each of these changes is made to achieve consistency, correct an error or change nomenclature. These changes have no adverse impact upon safety and are, therefore, acceptable.
ENVIRdHMENTALCONSIDERATION These amendments relate to changes in recordkeeping, reporting or administra-tive procedures or requirements. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility) criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
CONCLUSION The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (52 FR 9566) on March 25, 1987.
The Comission consulted with the state of North Carolina. No public comments were received, and the state of Horth Carolina did not have any coments.
l l
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 aroposed manner, and (2) such activities t
will be conducted in compliance with tie Comission's regulations, and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
<!,4 q
l Principal Contributor:
D. Hood, PDill-3/0RP-I/II l
Dated:
I I