ML20236X361
| ML20236X361 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1998 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236X360 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9808070323 | |
| Download: ML20236X361 (3) | |
Text
.
amg\\
0 UNITED STATES g
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
p 2
WASHINGTON, D.C. 30666-4001 I
j SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.179 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-9 AND AMENDMENT NO.161TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPE-lZ DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION. UNITS 1 AND 2
(
DOCKET NOS. 50-369 AND 50-370 I
l
{
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated March 3,1998, as supplemented by letters dated April 24, May 7 and July 22, 1998, Duke Energy Corporation (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications (TS). The requested changes revise Figure 5.1-1 of the TS to show the new location of the meteorological tower. The proposed TS change does not change the related TS Section 5.1.1. The July 22,1998, submittal provided clarifying information that did not change the scope of the March 3,1998, application and the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee plans to remove the current meteorological tower from its location west of the reactor plant complex and construct a new tower at a location generally north of the plant complex on a strip of land between Lake Norman and the plant discharge canal. To obtain meteorological information required for a valid estimate of atmospheric diffusion in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant site, the meteorological instruments should be sited to adequately represent overall site area conditions and minimize possible influences from local features. The licensee has considered severallocations prior to selection of the proposed location. One location is in an open area, but does not provide adequate space for placement of guy lines neeoed to secure the tower and is not in a secured area. A second location is in an area where the topography slopes down into a river valley and could be subject to localized air flows.
The proposed tower location is an open area on the bank of Lake Norman north of the reactor buildir.gs. The licensee has stated that this location meets the guidelines of Section C.2, " Siting of Meteorologicalinstruments," of Regulatory Guide 1.23,"Onsite Meteorological Programs."
The new tower will be sited at approximately the same elevation as finished plant grade and in l
an area where plant structures will have little or no influence on the meteorological measurements. As a result of removing trees along the shore of Lake Norman, the tower will be sited in an open area that is at least 10 obstruction heights away from natural or man-made obstructions. This relatively flat area has an exposure to Lake Norman whose presence dominates the ambient meteorology in the McGuire site vicinity. At the new location the tower 9808070323 900730 PDR ADOCK 05000369 P
2-will also be farther away from possible influences of plant buildings and the Cowans Ford Dam.
While the tower will be near the plant discharge canal, the licensee has determined that the canal should not affect the meteorological measurements. The proposed location is also subject to routine security checks.'
The licensee has not performed a quantitative assessment of the potential effects of possible micro scale conditions on the meteorological measurements, but has committed in a May 7, 1998, letter from H. B. Barron to collect concurrent meteorological data for a short period of time. This time is estimated to be between September 1 and 15,1998, when the new tower becomes operational and prior to removal of the current tower to facilitate the planned construction work. While it would be desirable to collect concurrent data for a longer period of time, the licensee has stated that this is the longest period possible given the instrument l
acquisition, tower placement, and construction schedules. The planned period of concurrent
{
measurements will allow a limited comparison reflecting diurnal variations.
By letter dated April 24,1998, the licensee has committed to compare and correlate historical data with quarterly and annual data periods collected from the new tower. Based on the results of this correlation, the licensee will determine the need for revising design basis calculations, the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) and the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM), and make updates as appropriate. As a minimum, the licensee will review 1 year of data for representativeness of each hourly data record collected from the new tower and compare the data from the new tower with historical data with respect to time of day and season. The licensee will provide a report to the NRC describing the review performed and identify and discuss the probable cause and significance of any apparent anomalies or differences between measurements taken on the two towers. Should it appear that data collected at the new tower location are not temporally or spatially representative of the overall site meteorology, the licensee willinstitute remedial measures.
Staff Conclusion The licensee has made commitments to compare and correlate data collected at the current and new tower locations and, if appropriate, to make changes to design basis calculations, the UFSAR and ODCM. These commitments are being relied upon to ensure that the new tower location can consistently provide data that are adequately representative of overall site area conditions and update the McGuire dose calculations, if needed. Based upon these considerations, the staff has concluded that the proposed changes to the McGuire Technical Specifications to move the location of the meteorological tower are acceptable.
l 3.0 fiTATE CONSULTATION In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the North Carolina State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments change requirements with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff has
3-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 (63 FR 35293 dated June 29,1998). 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 I
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 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: Leta Brown Date:
July 30, 1998 I
l l
t I