ML20210K814
| ML20210K814 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 04/17/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210K805 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8604290074 | |
| Download: ML20210K814 (2) | |
Text
- -..
4 sung k
UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
I
- r, a
wasmwow o.c.zeses
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION' RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.55 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-9 AND AMENDMENT NO. 36TO FACILITY OP2 RATING LICENSE NPF-17 j
DUKE POWER COMPANY DOCKET NOS. 50-369 AND 50-370 MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 INTRODUCTION l
By letter dated April 1,1985, Duke Power Company (the licensee) requested i
changes to Technical Specification 3.7.10.1, " Fire Suppression System" to require that either fire suppression Pumps A and C or Pumps B and C be oper-i able at all times. The requested change would also supplement the associated
/
j Bases to state that, for McGuire Nuclear Station, Pumps A and B serve as backup for each other, and that Pump C is located separately with independent dedi-cated power supply. By letter dated October 14, 1985, the licensee provided j
additional information in support of this request.
J j
EVALUATION l
The previous Specification 3.7.10.1 required at least two of the fire suppres-i sion pumps (Pump A, B, or C) to be operable at all times. This allowed any l
one of the three pumps to be indefinitely inoperable. For example, fire sup-i pression Pump C could have been inoperable indefinitely as long as Pumps A and j
B were operable.
The McGuire fire suppression water system consists of three fire pumps, each of which is electrically powered. Pumps A and B are powered by switchgear in j
the main switchyard, and Pump C is powered by a dedicated substation.
None-of i
the pumps is powered from the safety busses. Consequently, under the previous j
Technical Specification 3.7.10.1, if fire Pumps A and B were~ lost as a result j
of loss of their offsite power, a total loss of fire suppression water would l
have occurred if fire Pump C were out of service at the time. This situation i
negated the benefits of the independent offsite power source for fire Pump C.
The change implemented by these amendments re-establishes this benefit by re-quiring as a limiting condition for operation that Pump C in combination with y
one of the other two pumps be operable at all times. The change, therefore, j
improves the reliability of the fire suppression system by imposing a more restrictive condition for operation with an inoperable fire pump.
It causes j
no changes in our previous conclusions regarding the acceptability of the McGuire fire suppression water system. Moreover, based upon our review of this change and the supplemental information provided in the licensee's October 14, 1985, letter, we find that the fire pumps meet the intent of the fire protection guidelines of Appendix A to Branch Technical Position APCSB 9.5-1.
The change is. therefore, acceptable.
I B604290074 B60417 e
l PDR ADOCK 05000369 P
pg
,,-- - e -
---ce-.---wce-y---#---,my,.-,.,v-,--.-c.--,-w~.,,-m-
.-v..-.,,---..~-,,-,,,.--.---,-w-r-
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of facility com-ponents located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts 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 this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there have been no public comments on such findings.
Accordingly, this amendment meets the eli exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)gibility criteria for categorical Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
CONCLUSION The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (50FR29009)onJuly 17, 1985, and 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 public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendnent will not be inimical to the common defense and 1
security or to the health and safety of the public.
i Principal Contributors:
Darl S. Hood, PWR#4 L
S. West, PAPS J. Knight, PAEI Dated: April 17, 1986 i
i I
- -