ML15112B070
| ML15112B070 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15112B069 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8211060627 | |
| Download: ML15112B070 (3) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 2b555 SAFETY EVALUATION.BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 115TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-38 AMENDMENT NO. 115TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-47 AMENDMENT NO. 112TO 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 By letter dated July 30, 1982, Duke Power Company (Duke or the licensee) requested changes to the common Oconee Nuclear Station (0NS) Technical Specifications (TSs) to reflect a Duke reorganization and revised quali fication requirements for the Superintendent of Operations and the Operating Engineer.
An additional application was submitted by letter dated September 10, 1982, which requested changes to the local leak testing requirements for four containment penetrations.
2.0 Evaluation A. Administrative Controls Changes Establishment of the Nuclear Production Department The current Oconee TSs indicate that the Manager, Oconee Nuclear Station, reports to the Manager, Nuclear Production, who in turn reports to the Vice President, Steam Production. The proposed reorganization divides the functions of the Vice President, Steam Production, into three new positions:
Vice President, Nuclear Production; Vice President, Fossil Production; and Vice President, Production Support..Reporting to the Vice President, Nuclear Production, will be a General Manager, Nuclear Stations, to whom the Nuclear Station Managers will report. Also reporting to the Vice President, Nuclear Production, will be a Manager, Nuclear Reliability Assurance; Manager, Nuclear Safety Assurance; Manager, Nuclear Operation; Manager, Nuclear Maintenance; Manager, Nuclear Technical Services; Manager, Nuclear Engineering Services; Manager, Nuclear Administrative Services; and Manager, Nuclear General Services.
We consider that these proposed changes provide for better integration of those functions needed to support the operation of the nuclear station under a single high level corporate official and are acceptable.
This is reflected in revised TS Figure 6.1-2 and numerous text changes.
8211060627 821026 PDR ADOCK 05000269 P
__PDR j
-2
- Establishment of an In-Line Operating Engineer The current TSs show the Shift Supervisors reporting directly to the Operating Superintendent, who meets the qualification requirements for Operations Manager of Section 4.2.2 of ANSI/ANS 3.1-1978, "American National Standards for Selection and Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel", with an Operating Engineer as a staff assistant to the Operating Superintendent. The licensee plans to upgrade the qualifica tions of the Shift Operating Engineer to that of the Operations Manager of Section 4.2.2 of ANSI/ANS 3.1-1978 and place the Shift Operating Engineer in a line position between the Shift Supervisors and the Operating Superintendent. This organization is shown in revised TS Figure 6.1-1.
The licensee proposes to alter the qualification requirements for the Operating Superintendent such that he must hold or have held a senior license on the unit.
We find that the proposed organizational change is acceptable as the Shift Operating Engineer will meet the qualification requirements for the indivi dual performing the function of Operations Manager of Section 4.2.2 of ANSI/ANS 3.1-1978 and meets the staff position of Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.8.
- Operating Experience Assessment The current TSs state that "several engineers, familiar with plant opera tions and representing diverse technical backgrounds will be assigned to provide the operating experience assessment."
The licensee proposes to change this requirement to state that "the operating experience assessment function will be provided by the Station Safety Review Group."
We find this proposed change acceptable as it does not dilute the operating experience assessment function.
B. Lbcal Leak Test Requirements License Amendments Nos. 104, 104 and 101 were issued to ONS Units 1, 2 and 3, respectively, on November 6, 1981.
These amendments revised the containment leak rate testing requirements in accordance with Appendix J to 10 CFR 50.
Subsequently, it was determined that the local leak test requirements for four penetrations (Numbers 46, 55, 60 and 61) are more restrictive than required by Appendix J. Therefore, by letter dated September 10, 1982, Duke requested the local leak test requirements be corrected from Type B to Type C for these four penetrations.
Appendix J to 10 CFR 50 requires:
Type B tests to detect local leaks and to measure leakage across each pressure-containing or leakage limiting boundary for penetrations incorporating designs such as resilient seals, bellows and flexible metal seals, air lock doors and doors with resilient seals; and Type C tests to measure containment isolation valve leakage rates. The four penetrations have diaphragm-type, containment isolation valves on both the inside and outside of the reactor building. A misinterpretation of the Appendix J designation of resilient seals to include diaphragm-type valves
-3 led to the proposal indicating that Type B tests would be performed on these penetrations. Since the results of either Type B or Type C leak testing will provide acceptable indications of containment integrity, we approved the proposal as requested in the above mentioned license amendments.
Since the change from a Type B to Type C test for Penetrations 46, 55, 60 and 61 will continue to provide acceptable indications of containment integrity and since these containment isolation valves should appropriately (in accordance with Appendix J) be Type C leak tested, we find this change to be acceptable.
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 an accident previously evaluated, do not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, 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 26, 1982 The following NRC personnel have contributed to this Safety Evaluation:
Philip C. Wagner, Fred Allenspach.