ML15113A213
| ML15113A213 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 10/09/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15113A212 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8510210197 | |
| Download: ML15113A213 (2) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 143 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-38 AMENDMENT NO. 143 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-47 AMENDMENT NO. 140 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 February 10, 1983, 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 Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (0NS 1, 2, 3).
These amendments would consist of changes to the Station's common TSs. Other changes requested in the February 10, 1983 submittal have been approved by amendments dated August 27 and September 13, 1984.
TS 3.1.2 would allow the use of the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) inservice leak and hydrostatic test heatup and cooldown limitations during the performance of leak tests of connected systems when the RCS pressure-temperature (P-T) limits are controlling.
2.0 Evaluation License condition 3.H requires the licensee to implement a program to reduce leakage from systems outside containment that would or could contain highly radioactive fluids during a serious transient or accident to as low as practical levels. One such system is the low pressure injection (LPI) system. TS 4.5.4.2, among other things, requires that the LPI system be leak tested at 350 psig.
The licensee usually tests the LPI system during heatup or cooldown.
When the reactor is in either of these modes, TS 3.1.2 provides curves that allow only certain P-T combinations. Curves for hydrostatic
- testing provide higher P-T combinations. By adding the proposed TS 3.1.2.3, the licensee is requesting to perform the LPI leakage test under the P-T curves which apply for hydrostatic testing. These curves would give more margin between the LPI system test pressure of 350 psig and the limits imposed by the P-T curves.
The proposed changes state that the leak test of the LPI system will be conducted by establishing RCS pressure at the desired test pressure and 6510210197 851009 PDR ADOCK 05000269 P.PDR
-2 with the LPI system at the same pressure, checking for leakage.
In that the RCS is used to establish the test pressure, one of the required controls is the limitation imposed by the RCS heatup and cooldown rates and the allowable combinations of P-T as shown by TS Figures 3.1.2-3A for Oconee Unit 1, 3.1.2-3B for Unit 2, and 3.1.2-3C for Unit 3. The test pressure for the LPI system is specified as 350 psig. The TS figures allow a pressure of 509 psig at 700 for Unit 1; 519 psig at 700 for Unit 2; and 499 psig at 700 for Unit 3 for the first fifteen effective full power years (EFPY).
After reviewing the licensee's request, we have concluded that the use of the RCS inservice leak and hydrostatic test heatup and cooldown limitations for the testing of the LPI system is a conservative measure which would become an important factor if there were to be a large change in the P-T limitation curves for the RCS.
3.0 Environmental Consideration These amendments involve a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part
- 20. 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.
4.0 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:
October 9, 1985 Principal Contributor: J. Blake