ML15112B039
| ML15112B039 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 10/19/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15112B038 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111060148 | |
| Download: ML15112B039 (2) | |
Text
oottREG1,4 o
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
WVASHINGTON-D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 101 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-38 AMENDMENT NO.101 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-47 AMENDMENT NO. 98TO 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 November 20, 1980, the NRC informed all Power Reactor Licensees (except SEP Licensees) of the staff's revised position on inservice surveillance requirements for snubbers. Attached to that letter was guidance on the content of Technical Specifications (TSs) which the staff felt appropriate to provide assurance of the operability of snubbers (both mechanical and hydraulic) during plant operation.
Evaluation By letter dated June 3, 1981, Duke Power Company (Duke) responded to the November 20, 1980, NRC request and applied for changes to the common Oconee Nuclear Station TSs.
This application included operability requirements (Specification 3.14) and visual inspection requirements (Specification 4.18.1) for all appropriate mechanical and hydraulic snubbers. However, functional testing requirements were included for only the hydraulic snubbers (Specifications 4.18.3 and 4.18.4). In the June 3, 1981 application, Duke stated that the mechanical snubber functional testing requirements had been deleted, at the time, because there is no. "feasible means available for performing this testing."
Duke did, however, commit to incorporate a set of requirements into the Oconee TSs "when such means (for testing mechanical snubbers) become commercially and abundantly available."
We have !reviewed Duke's position and agree that the equipment necessary to perform functional testing of mechanical snubbers is not "abundantly" available, but we feel that the equipment is available and the implementation of functional testing should not be postponed indefinitely. Duke was informed of this.position, and it was agreed that the TSs which Duke had proposed to incorporate at a later date, and which we found acceptable, would be incorporated into the TSs (as Specification 4.18.5) at this time to be effective following the Oconee Unit 2 refueling outage for Cycle 7 P DRADRC
-2 operation. This will allow time for Duke to procure the necessary equipment. while adhering to a schedule we accept.
An additional change to Duke's application related to hydraulic snubbers seal life (Specification 4.18.2) was requested-by the NRC staff and agreed to by. Duke.. The change requires the seal service life of hydraulic snubbers.to be monitored and recorded so that seals are replaced prior to the, expiration of the expected serviceable lifetime.
We have reviewed the revised TSs related to both mechanical and hydraulic snubbers and find them to be in accordance with the latest NRC staff positions. Since the revised TSs will assure a higher degree of reliability for these snubbers, we conclude that the proposed changes, as revised, are acceptable.
Included in Duke's application was a request to extend implementation of these TS changes for 30 days after approval to allow time to fully implement the new procedures and-train personnel concerning those new procedures.
The staff finds a 30-day grace period to be acceptable and, therefore, the effective date of these amendments has been postponed for thirty days following their issuance.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendments do not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded 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 environmental impact statement, or negative declaration and environ mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendments 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 consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be-endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: October 19, 1981