ML15112B042
| ML15112B042 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15112B041 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203300019 | |
| Download: ML15112B042 (2) | |
Text
0 oUNITED STATES C%
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, 0. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.108 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-38 AMENDMENT NO. 108TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-47 AMENDMENT NO.105 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 1.0 Introduction On March 5, 1982, representatives of Duke Power Company (Duke or the licensee) informed the NRC Project Manager that an administrative error had been made on the heatup and cooldown curves which had been submitted by letter dated January 12, 1982, and subsequently approved by License Amendments 107, 107 and 104 issued on February 22, 1982, for the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The error involves not allowing sufficient pressure at lower temperatures (below approximately 2000F) to operate the Unit 1 Reactor Coolant Pumps (RCPs). Apparently, when the curves for all three Units were developed, the fact that the Unit 1 RCPs are different than those in Units 2 and 3 and require a high net positive suction head (NPSH) was not adequately considered.
Accordingly, NRC's review and approval of the pro posed curves did not consider the operational viability but only the safety aspects.
Since we determined that the proposed curves represented a con servative mode of operation, we found them acceptable. In order to allow Unit 1 to operate the RCPs during heatup and cooldown at lower temperatures, a change to the curves, in the form of a license amendment, is needed, Duke was informed of this and decided to request the reinstatement of the curves, which had been superceded by the above-mentioned License Amendments, for Unit 1 for the interim and to propose the technical adjustments that are necessary.to allow long-term operation in the near future. By letter dated March 8, 1932, Duke submitted the request that the original curves be rein stated.
2.0 Evaluation Duke's request to reinstate the heatup and cooldown curves for Oconee Unit 1 has been reviewed and determined to be little more than an administrative change to the TSs.
The heatup and cooldown curves for normal operation of Oconee Unit 1 were approved by License Amendments 71, 71 and 68, which were issued on March 19, 1979, to be applicable for the first six effective full power years (EFPY) of operation. Since Oconee Unit 1 has an accumulated service life of approximately 5.1.EFPY, the curves which were superceded by more conservative replacements are still valid and sufficiently conservative for the remainder of the first six EFPY, 8203300019 820316 PDR ADOCK 05000269 P
.PDR
0
- 0.
-2 Since the proposed curves had been reviewed and found to be acceptable, we find that Oconee Unit 1 can continue to operate safely under these limita tions.
Additional changes will be required for long-term operation and will be addressed in future correspondence.
3.0 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.
4.0 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 conon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: March 16, 1982 The following NRC staff personnel have contributed to this Safety Evaluation:
Philip C. Wagner.