ML15113A042
| ML15113A042 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 11/02/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15113A041 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111200504 | |
| Download: ML15113A042 (2) | |
Text
o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555.
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.102 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-38 AMENDMENT'NO. 102 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-47 AMENDMENT NO.
99 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 By letter dated September 8, 1981, Duke Power Company (Duke) requested a change to the format of Table 3.5.1-1 "Instruments Operating Conditions" to the. format of.the Standard Technical Specifications (STS).
This administrative change would resolve interpretation problems which have existed.- Also included in this request was a revision to the bases for TS 4.5 to remove incorrect wording.
Duke submitted an additional application by letter dated September 10, 1981 This application requested changes.to Safety Limits and Reactor Protective System (RPS) setpoints to reflect.the current calculated string errors.
The newly calculated RPS errors were based on-the Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS) Unit 3. Based on instrumentation comparisons, these errors.wde determined to bound those for ONS Units 1 and'2 for the maximum power and temperature setpoints. The remaining changes apply only to Unit 3; similar changes for Units 1 and 2 will be handled separately.
2.0 Discussion and Evaluation 2.1 Instrumentation Table Format Change By letter dated September 8, 1981, Duke requested that the format of Table 3.5.1-T "Instruments Operating Conditions" be changed to a format similar to the STS.
This change is administrative in.
nature and was requested to eliminate confusion of the requirements.
We have reviewed the proposed change and have determined that the requirements remain unchanged and that only the format is revised.
Since the requirements remain the same, we find this change acceptable.
Included in this request was a revised wording to the bases for. specification 4.5 "Emergency Core Cooling Systems."
The change corrects the wording contained in thelast paragraph and is acceptable.
8111200504 911102 PDR ADOCK 05000269 P
-2 2.2 RPS String Errors By letter dated September 10, 1981, Duke requested changes to TSs 2.1 "Safety Limits, Reactor Core" and 2.3 "Limiting Safety System Settings, Protective Instrumentation." These changes are necessary to reflect the'current.calculated string errors used in the determination of RPS s'etpo.ints.
The effect-of these errors requires-more restrictive setpoints for some reactor trip functions.
The errors usedin the determination of maximum nuclear power and reactor coolant temperatur were ca Tculated for Oconee 3 and comparisons of'the instruments installed in Oconee 1 and 2 determined that the errors were bounded.for these Units. Therefore, these new setpoints apply to all three units and since they are conservative, they have been implemented on Oconee Units 2 and 3 and will be implemented on Oconee Unit-1 prior to restart from the current refueling outage.
The changes to Section 2.1 and the Protective System Maximum Allowable Setpoints in Section 2.3 were calculated for Oconee Unit 3 and apply only to 'that Unit. *Similar changes will be incorporated in the reload applications for Oconee Units 1 ahe, 2-.
We have reviewed these proposed' cnanges and find:
- 1) the analysis procedures used are the same as those previously found acceptable for similar plants, 2) the changes are in the conservative direction, and 3) the changes.are the-same. reductions' found acceptable for other similar plants. Therefore, we conclude that these changes are acceptable.
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.151.5(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 assurarice 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: November 2,1981