ML15113A082
| ML15113A082 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 01/30/1984 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15113A081 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8402150457 | |
| Download: ML15113A082 (2) | |
Text
R0 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.126 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-38 AMENDMENT NO. 126 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-47 AMENDMENT NO. 123 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 September 29, 1982, the Commission issued Amendments Nos.
113, 113 and 110 to the licenses for Oconee Nuclear Station, Units Nos. 1, 2 and 3, which revised the Station's common Technical Specifications (TSs) to allow full power operation of Oconee Unit 3 during fuel Cycle 7. Duke Power Company's (DPC or the licensee) proposed Unit 3 Axial Power Shaping Rod (APSR) Position Limits were reviewed and approved as part of these amendments.
In a submittal dated September 14, 1983, DPC disclosed that while calculatinq the Oconee Unit 2 Cycle 7 TSs, they became aware that a correction should be made to the APSR position limits of Unit 3 after 385 Effective Full Power Days (EFPD).
Review and evaluation of the Oconee Unit 3 TS change was requested along with the Oconee Unit 2 Cycle 7 reload review and evaluation. The Unit 2 Cycle 7 reload TSs, including the APSR position limits for Unit 2 Cycle 7 and the corrected APSR position limits for Unit 3 Cycle 7, were subsequently re viewed and found acceptable. By letter dated November 23, 1983, the Commission issued Amendments Nos. 124, 124 and 121 revising the TSs to allow full power operation of Oconee Unit 2 during fuel Cycle 7, but for administrative reasons, deferred the issuance of the Unit 3 Cycle 7 corrected APSR position limits to a later date as a separate licensing action. This evaluation addresses the de ferred Unit 3 Cycle 7 corrected APSR position limits.
EVALUATION The difference in the APSR position limit was caused by poor convergence of the calculated power distribution for Oconee Unit 3 Cycle 7. The discrepancy was discovered at the time of the preparation of the Oconee Unit 2 Cycle 7 reload but before Oconee Unit 3 reached 385 EFPD. Therefore, no period of potentially unsafe operation occurred. The appropriate report was filed.
Inasmuch as the calculation was carried out with an approved method and the recommended number of iterations was used, we find the requested TS change acceptable for Oconee Unit 3.
240150457 840130 PDR ADOCK 05000269 p
-2
SUMMARY
We conclude that the corrections to Oconee 3 Cycle 7 will not adversly affect the capability to operate the plant safely. We also conclude that the proposed changes to the TSs discussed above.for Oconee 3 Cycle 7 are 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 environmental 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) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) 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: January 30, 1984 The following NRC staff personnel have contributed to this Safety Evaluation:
L. Lois and J.Suermann.