ML15112A944
| ML15112A944 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 10/07/1980 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15112A943 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8010210050 | |
| Download: ML15112A944 (2) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 87 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-38 AMENDMENT NO. 87 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-47 AMENDMENT NO. 84 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-55 DUKE POWER COMPANY OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS NOS. 1, 2, AND 3 DOCKETS NOS. 50-269, 50-270 AND 50-287 Introduction By letter dated July 22, 1980, the Duke Power Company (the licensee) submitted proposed changes to the Station's common TechnicaT Specifications (TSs) modifying the reactor vessel pressure-temperature operating limit curves for Oconee Units Nos. 2 and 3.
Background
The pressure-temperature operating limit curves for Units 2 and 3 were developed for the first 4 effective full power years (EFPY) from the first reactor vessel material surveillance capsules removed from the reactor vessels after about one year of operation. For Oconee Unit 2 the 4 EFPY curves will become invalid in early to mid-October 1980, necessitating the need for this amendment.
The licensee proposed extending the current operating limits to accommodate the predicted future effect one EFPY of operation would have on the fracture tough ness of the reactor vessel. fThe licensee conservatively used the methodolgy of Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 1, to perform his evaluation.
Evaluation The licensee has proposed that the current pressure-temperature limits for Units 1 and 2 be revised by increasing the allowable temperatures by 150 F to account for an increase in fluence corresponding to one EFPY. This would make the revised curves applicable for 5 EFPY instead of 4 EFPY.
We have evaluated the information submitted by the licensee and have concluded that his proposed revision will account for the increase in fluence that will result from an additional one EFPY of exposure, and that the revised curves will be in conformance with Appendix G, 10 CFR Part 50. Conformance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, constitutes an acceptable basis for satisfying the requirements of 8010210050
9 S
Oconee 1/2/3
-2 NRC General Design Criterion 31, Appendix.A, 10 CFR Part 50, and thus the revised opehating limits are acceptable.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendments do not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase ih power level and will hot result in any sighificant environmental impact. Having made this determihation, we have further coch1uded that the amendments involve an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR §51.5(d)(4),
that an envirohmental impact statement, or negative declaration and environ mental impact appraisai heed not be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amehdmebts.
Conclusion We have coholuded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) because the amehdments do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and do not involve a signi ficant decrease in a safety margin, the amendments do not involve a significant hazards cadhsideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety o he public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) suth activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common de fhse and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: October 1, 1980