ML20237L758
| ML20237L758 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 09/02/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237L737 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8709090064 | |
| Download: ML20237L758 (3) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
- p afog'o UNITED STATES l'-
]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 s....+/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 74 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-9 AND AMENDMENT NO. 55 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-17 DUKE POWER COMPANY DOCKET N05. 50-369 AND 50-370 McGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 INTRODUCTION
)
1 By Item 4.3 of. Generic Letter (GL) 83-28, " Required Actions Based on Generic l
Implications of Salem ATWS Events," the Commission established the require-ment for the automatic actuation of the shunt trip attachment on reactor trip breakers for nuclear plants utilizing Westinghouse nuclear steam supply systems. GL 83-28 also established that licensees were to submit needed Technical Specification (TS) change requests after staff approval of the j
modified design.
In its evaluation of the Westinghouse generic design modi-
{
fications, the Comission concluded that TS changes should be proposed by j
licensees to explicitly require independent testing of the undervoltage and shunt trip attachments du'ing power operation, testing of bypass breakers r
prior to use, and independent testing of the control room manual switch j
contccts and wiring during each refueling outage. Accordingly, the Comission issued GL 85-09, " Technical Specifications for Generic Letter 83-28. Item 4.3" to identify the appropriate changes to this end, to provide a model TS to use as guidance, and to request that licensees propose TS changs using this guidance.
The amendments change the McGuire TSs in accordance with GL 85-09.
EVALUATION By letter dated December 7, 1985. Duke Power Company (the licensee) proposed changes to the TSs identified by GL 25-09. Specifically, the diverse trip features (undervoltage or shunt trip attachment) are addressed by adding Action Statement 12 to Table 3.3-1 at item 19, Reactor Trip Breakers.
New Action 12 requires that:
With one of the diverse trip features (Undervoltage or shunt trip attachment) inoperable, restore it to OPERABLE status within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> or declare the breaker incperable and apply ACTION 9.
The breaker shall not be bypassed while one of the diverse trip features is inoperable except for the time required for performing maintenance to nistore the breaker to OPERABLE status.
Similarly, footnote 12 (previously footnote 11) for the monthly trip actuation device operational test for the breaker is added to TS Table 4.3-1 to state that:
8709090064 870902 PDR ADOCK 0500 9
a
. The TRIP ACTUATING DEVICE OPERATIONAL TEST shall independently verify the OPERABILITY o# the undervoltage and shunt trip attachments of the l
Reactor Trip Breakers.
The requirement of GL 85-09 for independent testing of the control room manual switch contacts and wiring during each refueling outage is addressed by adding footnote 11 to Table 4.3-1. Item 1 " Manual Reactor Trip." Footnote 11 states:
The TRIP ACTUATING DEVICE OPERATIONAL TEST shall independently verify the OPERABILITY of the undervoltage and shunt trip circuits for the Manual Reactor Trip Function.
By letters dated March 16 and April 1,1987, the licensee addressed the require-ment of GL 85-09 for testing of the reactor trip bypass breakers prior to placing them into service. The change adds new Item 21 " Reactor Trip Bypass Breakers" to Table 4.3-1 contaidng footnotes 13 and 14 for the periodic trip actuating
)
device operational test. Footnote 13 is referenced for the monthly test and states that prior to placing the breakers in service, a local manual shunt trip shall be performed. Footnote 14 is referenced for the 18-month test and states that the automatic undervoltage try capability shall be verified operable.
Item 21 applies to modes 1 through 5; modes 3 through 5 apply with the breakers
]
closed and the control rod drive system capable of rod withdrawal.
{
Additionally, the NRC has supplemented TS Bases 3/4.3.1 and 3/4.3.2 to indic' ate that the TSs for the Reactor Trip Breakers and the Reactor Trip Bypass Breakers are based upon GL 85-09.
l We have reviewed the above TS changes proposed by the licensee and find the'n to be consistent with those of GL 85-09. Therefore, we conclude that these changes enhance plant reliability and safety, and that they are acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION These amendments involve changes to the installation or use of facilities' 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 i
no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational exposure. The l
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 ex-clusion 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 l
The Comission made proposed detenninations that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which were published in the Federal Register (51 FR 22234) on June 18,1986, and (52 FR 13336) on April 22, 1987. The l
Comission consulted with the state of North Carolina. No public comments l
were received, and the state of North Carolina did not have any conrnents.
l
, We have concluded, based on the considerations oiscussed above, that:
(l' there is reasonable assurarre that the health and safety cf the public will not be endangered by oper6 tion in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations, and the issuance of these amendraents will not be inimical to the conrnon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
Darl S. Hood, PD#11-3 A. Toalston, PAEl Dated: September 2, 1987 l
t i
l l
1 1
l
\\
f I
.