ML20205F621
| ML20205F621 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 03/24/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205F610 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8703310219 | |
| Download: ML20205F621 (3) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ -
i
[@ Me UNITEJ STATES t,
NUCLEAR RE ULATORY COMMISSION o
j-
{
,1 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666
- $g*..../
I SAFETY EVAltlATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.69 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-9 AND AMENDMENT NO. 50 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPC-U DUKE POWER COMPANY DOCKET NOS. 50-369 AND 50-370 McGIJIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 INTRODilCTION Each McGuire unit has a two-region spent fuel storage pool.
In region 1 the center-to-center spacing of fuel assemblies and the amount of neutron absorber (boron) in the racks is such that fresh fuel containing up to 4.0 weight percent U-235 may be safelf stored.
In region 2 the assemblies are stored closer to-gether and less boron is built into the racks. Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.9.12 states that fuel may be stored in this region only if it has achieved a certain minimum burnup which is dependent on its initial enrichment. TS Figure 3.9-2 is a curve which shows the reouired minimum burnup.
By letter dated February 17, 1986 Duke Power Company (the licensee) made application to amend the ifcenses of the McGuire Nuclear Station, ifnits 1 and
\\
2.
The proposed amendments would change the TSs so as to:
1.
Replace TS Figure 3.9-2 with a Table 3.9-1 containing the same information.
2.
Add the capability to perform a safety (criticality) analysis on individuai fuel assemblies as an acceptance criterion for fuel storage in region ?, and 3.
Add a Bases 3/4.9.12 to the TSs to discuss fuel storace.
EVALUATION 1.
Substitution of Table 3.9-1 for Finure 3.9-?
The licensee has concluded that it will be easier for the operators to use a table rather than a figure to determine the minimum burnup for the initial enrichment required for region 2 storage. Use of the table i1 expected to reduce the probability of error. The NRC has reviewed proposed Table 3.9-1 and finds that it contains the same infomation as that of Figure 3.9-2 which it replaces. Therefore, we find the change to be of an administrative nature and acceptable.
0703310219 G70324 PDR ADOCK 05000369 P
ppg
7 __
4 0-
' 2.
Use of Criticality Analysis The licensee proposes to perform criticality analyses for assemblies that do not appear to qualify for inclusion under the conservative table (Table 3.9-1) of minimum burnups in the TSs. As stated in the licensee's letters dated February 5 and March 16, 1987, the analysis would be performed using NRC ap-proved methodology. The currently approved methodology is that which was previously reviewed and approved by the NRC for the existing rack design (see orevious Amendments 35 (Unit 1) and 16 (Unit 2)). The same acceptance criterion (K no greater than 0.95, including all uncertainties, at a 95 percentprob3$flitywitha95percentconfidencelevel)wouldalsobeused.
Therefore, we conclude that this change is acceptable.
3.
Addition of Bases 3/4.9.12 We have reviewed the licensee's proposed Bases 3/4.9.12 and find that it adequately describes the purpose and design basis associated with the Limiting Conditions for Operation and Surveillance Requirements for TS 3/4.9.12.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION These amendments involve changes to the installation or use of facility com-ponents located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes in surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that the amend-ments 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 exposure. The NRC staff has made a determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility 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 these amendments.
CONCLUSION The Commission node a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (51 FR 30571) on August 27, 1986. The licensee's subsequent submittals dated February 5 and March 16, 1987, do not alter the scope of the licensee's re-quested amendment as describtJ in the August 27, 1986 Federal _ Register; nor do they affect the Comission's oroposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission consulted with the state of North Carolina.
No public comments were received, and the state of North Carolina did not have any comments.
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the pubile will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, ard (21 such activities will be conducted in corpliance with the Comission's regulations, and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the comon defense ord security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
W. Decoks, PARS Darl S. Hood, PWR#4 Dated:
March 24, 1987
!O
, w
.. d '
DATED: March 24, 1987 AMENDMENT NO. 69TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 1 AMENDMENT NO. 30TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Mmisw3 NRC PDR~ ' "" ~"
- ~ " "
Local PDR PRC System NSIC FWRs4 R/F S. J. Youngblood R/F M. Duncan D. Hood H. Thompson OGC/Bethesde J. Partlow B. Grimes E. Jordan L. Harmon W. Jones T. Barnhart (8)
ACRS(10)
OPA LFEB N. Thompson E. Butcher
]
i I
l i
[
j F
i f
i 1
1 i
l l
i i
.