ML15218A095
| ML15218A095 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 07/10/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15218A094 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908080126 | |
| Download: ML15218A095 (2) | |
Text
0EG UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 74 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-38 AMENDMENT NO. 74 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-47 AMENDMENT NO. 71 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 August 22, 1978, as supplemented April 30, 1979, the Duke Power Company (DPC or the licensee) prop.osed changes in Technical Specifi cation (TS) 4.18. The proposed changes would:
(1) correct an error in the TS in regard to a suppressor designation; (2) clarify the TS; and (3) delete hydraulic suppressors replaced in service by mechanical snubbers.
Evaluation The licensee requested that hydraulic suppressor (snubber) 2-130 in Oconee Unit No. 2 be redesignated as, "especially difficult to remove," in TS Table 4.18-1.
This designation would exempt a snubber from functional testing, i.e., piston movement, lock-up and bleed, but not from the re maining surveillance requirements of fluid level, fluid line connections, linkage connections and anchorage connections. The exemption would pre vail only if a snubber were demonstrated operable duringits previous functional tests.
DPC in their letter of April 30, 1979 stated:
"Snubber 2-130 is located on the pier supporting the main steam line from the 'B' steam generator outside containment. This suppressor is approximately 29 feet from the ground. Special equipment is.
required to lift personnel to the installed snubber in order to per form the required surveillance. This same snubber is already listed as "especially difficult to remove" in the tables for Units 1, 3 and is considered an administrative error that it was omitted from the Unit 2 listing."
7908080 /26
-2 Based on the above,we conclude snubber 2-130 should be redesignated "especially difficult to remove."
The licensee also requested that hydraulic snubbers that were replaced by mechanical snubbers be deleted from the TS.
We do not have any inspection requirements for mechanical snubbers; thus, it is proper to delete these snubbers from the TS. We have underway a generic study to formulate an inspection program for mechanical snubbers. We asked the licensee if the replacement snubbers performed in a no less conservative manner than the old snubbers.
DPC replied in their April 30, 1979 letter, "The use of mechanical snubbers to replace hydraulic snubbers does not negate the original piping analysis."
Based on the above,we conclude that deletion of the hydraulic snubbers replaced by mechanical snubbers from the TS is acceptable. The remainder of the change requests consisted of: deleting Note (3) from TS 4.18.1 because it was no longer timely; deleting Note (4) from TS 4.18.4 which erroneously extended the surveillance interval; deleting TS 4.18.4 that was no longer timely; and correcting an error in designating Table 4.18-1 in the TS Bases.
We found these four changes to be of an administrative nature and acceptable. The licensee requested a change in the language of TS 4.18.2. We find the change clarifies the intent of the specification and does not change its requirements and thus is 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 insionificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(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 accidents previously considered and do not involve a sianificant decrease in a safety margin, 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 de.fense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated:
July 10, 1979