ML20247E328
| ML20247E328 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Mcguire |
| Issue date: | 03/28/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247E314 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8904030031 | |
| Download: ML20247E328 (3) | |
Text
- - _ -
. [a ue f
UNITED STATES
.e g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7n
.j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\**.../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 75 TO FACIL*TY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-17 DUKE POWER COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-370 MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated December 7,1985, Duke Power Company (the licensee) proposed an amendment to delete paragraph 2.C(12) and referenced Table 1 from McGuire Unit 2 Operating License NPF-17. This paragraph is titled " Reactor Trip Breakers" and states that:
a.
By June 3,1983, the licensee shall provide a program plan for conducting a life-test of the undervoltage trip attachment. The life-test program is to be reviewed by the staff before implementation.
b.
The licensee shall modify the design of the automatic shunt trip of the main reactor trip breakers to install an independent fusing scheme. This modification shall be implemented on a schedule consistent with the schedule requirements of the NRC Salem Task Force generic program.
c.
The licensee shall implement the reactor trip breaker and reactor trip bypass breaker testing and reporting as described in Table 1.
d.
Within 60 days from issuance of this amendment, the licensee shall provide the upgraded post-trip review procedures for NRC staff review.
l Table 1 specifies periodic testing and reporting requirements for reactor trip breakers and reactor trip bypass breakers.
Additional changes proposed in the licensee's letter of Decenber 7,1985 have been addressed by previous Unit 2 Amendment 55 (and Unit 1 Amendment 74).
l 2.0 EVALUATION In early 1983, following failures of Westinghouse DS-416 circuit breakers throughout the industry and at McGuire, the Commission added paragraph 2.C(12) to the operating license for McGuire Unit 2 to require specific measures to improve the reliability of reactor trip breakers. The licensee notes that the specific measures required by each of the above subparagraphs have been 8904030031 890328 PDR ADOCK 05000370 P
. completed and that paragraph 2.C(12) of NPF-17 is, therefore, unnecessary and should be deleted. Specifically:
a.
The program plan required by 2.C(12)a was provided to the NRC by letter dated June 3, 1983, and subsequently approved.
b.
The design modifications required by 2.C(12)b have been performed.
c.
Testing of reactor trip breakers and reactor trip bypass breakers 1
has been addressed and approved subsequent to issuance of paragraph 2.C.(12)c. and referenced Table 1 by McGuire Unit 2 Amendment 55 (and Unit 1 Amendment'74). The amendments added periodic testing requirements to the McGuire Technical Specifications (TS) in accordance with NRC Generic Letter 85-09,
" Technical Specifications for Generic Letter 83-28, Item 4;3."
d.
The procedures required by 2.C(12)d were provided by letter dated July 22, 1983.
Thus, the proposed amendments remove obsolete (completed) requirements m (except as discussed below) requirements expressed elsewhere in the licase as a TS requirement. Therefore, their removal is purely administrative and has no saf ety implication and is acceptable.
The staff notes that Table 1 contains a footnote which is not redundant to requirements expressed elsewhere in the license. The footnote states that "On f ailure of any reactor trip (on either undervoltage or shunt coils), preservebreaker or re service or during testing evidence of failure and notify the Commission pursuant to Technical Specifi cation 6.9.1.10."
TS 6.9.1.10 requires reporting by telephone within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> and a written followup report.
The Commission wishes to continue to have evidence preserved and to receive timely reporting if such failures occur. Accordingly, this footnote is retained by relocating it to paragraph 2.C(12) of NPF-17.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment involves changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures and program requirements.
Accordingly, the amendment meets 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 the amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (54 FR 7632) on February 22, 1989. 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 public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in complitince with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
D. Hood, PD#11-3/DRP-1/II Dated: March 28, 1989
-