ML15113A143
| ML15113A143 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 02/06/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15113A142 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8502140361 | |
| Download: ML15113A143 (2) | |
Text
%:pREQU 0
UNITED STATES 0
NIOLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 134 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-38 AMENDMENT NO. 134TO FACILITY OPEPATING LICENSE NO. DPR-47 AMENDMENT NO. 131TO 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 9, 1984, Duke Power Company (the licensee) proposed changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) of Facility Operating Licenses
-Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55 for the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3. These amendments would consist of changes to the Station's common TSs.
These amendments would permit Oconee Unit 2 a one-time extension of the interval for inspecting inaccessible hydraulic snubbers such that the inspection be performed during the 1985 Unit 2 refueling outage provided that such outage begins no later than March 15, 1985. The inspection is currently required to be performed before February 14, 1985.
BACKGROUND These snubbers are designed to prevent unrestrained pipe motion during and following a severe transient on seismic disturbance. A visual inspection of inaccessible hydraulic snubbers was performed by the licensee for Oconee Unit 2 on September 19, 1983. The inspection resulted in the discovery of two inoperable snubbers. However, after careful study and analysis, it was determined that one of these snubbers should not have been classified as inoperable since it passed the functional test with an adequate amount of fluid. The subsequent inspection interval should therefore be 12 months
+/- 25%. Accordingly, an inspection is required prior to February 14, 1985.
Since Oconee Unit 2 is presently scheduling its next refueling outage for February 24, 1985, the licensee is proposing an amendment to the Oconee Unit 2 TSs which consists of a one-time extension of one month to the inspection interval. The required inspection would have to be performed prior to March 15, 1985.
B502140361 850206 PDR ADOCK 0500026
-2 EVALUATION Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3 visual inspection results from 1977 to the present showed that the failure rate of hydraulic snubbers is historically very low, i.e., an expected failure rate of only one inoperable hydraulic snubber per unit per year. In Oconee Unit 2, the expected failure rate is only.4 snubbers per year. The September 19, 1983, inoperable snubber in Unit 2 was caused by fluid leakage through a bent hydraulic line fitting. The fitting and line were replaced and have not been disturbed since that time because of their inaccessibility.
Based on the above discussion, we conclude that the bent fitting on the hydraulic line was an isolated event and may have been caused some time ago. The event is not expected to be repeated because of the inaccessibilityV of this group of snubbers. The past record indicates that a high reliability of hydraulic snubbers can be expected on Oconee Unit 2. We further conclude that a one-time inspection interval extension of one month is justified for Oconee Unit 2 and therefore, find the proposed amendments'to the TSs to be acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION These amendments involve a change to an inspection or surveillance requirement.
We have determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need 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: February 6, 1985 Principal Contributors:
H. Shaw