ML16138A607
| ML16138A607 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 10/19/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16138A606 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8710270328 | |
| Download: ML16138A607 (4) | |
Text
0 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 163 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-38 AMENDMENT NO. 163 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-47 AMENDMENT NO. 160 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-55 DUKE POWER COMPANY OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2, and 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-269, 50-270 AND 50-287 I. INTRODUCTION By application dated August 22, 1985, as supplemented on February 11, 1986, Duke Power Company (the licensee) requested amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55 for the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3. These amendments would correct a typographical error, delete an expired footnote, update the station organization by adding the Station Services and Integrated Scheduling areas and provide clarity and consistency through different wording.
The February 11, 1986 submittal provided supplemental information and contained changes which reduced the review and/or approval responsibility of the Station Services Superintendent from that initially proposed. This submittal does not significantly alter the action noticed in the Federal Register on October 23, 1985 and does not affect the staff's proposed no significanthazards determination.
II. EVALUATION 2.1 T.S. 3.3.5.c(2)(b)-Deletion of Footnote and Correction of a Typographical Error (Page 3.3-3)
A footnote would be deleted because it expired on April 20, 1985.
The footnote referred to "3A" reactor building cooling (RBC) train, and authorized a one-time extension of inoperability to allow repair, provided both reactor building spray (RBS) trains are operable and that the "3A" RBC train is returned to service no later than 11:59 p.m., April 20, 1985. The proposed revision would delete this outdated footnote.
In the same sentence, the licensee is also proposing to.correct a typographical error (from C to S).
Therefore, both trains of the RBS system (not RBC) are required to be operable. This does not change the operability requirements of the systems but refers to the correct one and corrects a typographical error for the sentence to read, "One RBC train may be out of service for 7 days provided both RBS trains are operable."
8710270328'.871019 PDR ADOCK 05000269 P
2
-2 2.2 TSs 6.1.1.3, 6.1.2.1.a, c, and e - Adding Station Services and Integrated Scheduling (Pages 6.1-1, 6.1-2 and 6.1-3)
The licensee is proposing to add to TS 6.1.1.3, Station Services and Integrated Scheduling on the station organization.
In TSs 6.1.2.1.a, c and e, the licensee is proposing to add the Superintendents of Integrated Scheduling and of Station Services to allow them to approve safety-related procedures, structures, tests and experiments. In the February 11, 1986 supplement, the licensee explained the minimum qualifications required for the Superintendent of Station Services and the Superintendent of Integrated Scheduling.
The requirements for these two superintendents are equivalent to those of other station superintendents with comparable responsibilities.
TS 6.1.2.1.a would be changed to include the Station Services Superintendent and to allow this staff member to approve fire protection and security related procedures only and if so designated by the Station Manager. The Superintendent of Integrated Scheduling would also be included to allow him to review and approve safety-related procedures and others as required by TS 6.4.
TS 6.1.2.1.c would be revised to include the Superintendent of Integrated Scheduling to allow him to approve proposed modifications to station nuclear safety-related structures, systems and components, and if so designated by the Station Manager.
TS 6.1.2.1.e would be revised to include the Superintendent of Integrated Scheduling to allow him to review proposed tests and experiments which affect station nuclear safety and are not addressed in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) or TSs, and if so designated by the Station Manager.
We have reviewed the experience requirements for these two new positions and they seem to be similar to those required for other superintendents of similar responsibilities. Based on this, we find these proposed changes acceptable.
2.3 TS 6.1.1.4 - Relocating First Paragraph (Page 6.1-1a)
Because of changes to page 6.1-1, the last paragraph of TS 6.1.1.4 would be relocated in its entirety to page 6.1.1a.
2.4 TS 6.1.2.1 h and i - Clarifying the Word Annually and Including the Superintendent of Station Services TS 6.1.2.1.h requires that the Station Manager approve all changes to the station security program and implementing procedures. The proposed revision would allow the Station Services Superintendent to also approve these changes.
-3 TSs 6.1.2.1 h and i require annual review of the station security program, its implementing procedures, the station emergency plan and its implementing procedures. The proposed revisions would change the word from annually to once per twelve months to make the TSs consistent throughout and with other manuals.
2.5 TS 6.2.1 - Reportable Events (Page 6.2-1)
TS 6.2.1 requires that the Station Manager promptly investigate any reportable event. The proposed revisions would allow the Station Manager to assure that any reportable event is promptly investigated.
These revisions would better reflect the Station Manager's role in the event of a reportable occurrence; he does not investigate the event himself, but assures that the event is investigated by appropriate personnel.
2.6 TS 6.2.3 - Reportable Events (Page 6.2-1)
TS 6.2.3 requires that the Commission be notified of a reportable event pursuant to TS 6.6.2. The proposed revisions would add that the notification be done pursuant to 10 CFR 50.73 also. The proposed revision would provide consistency between TS 6.6.2 and 6.2.3.
2.7 Summary On the basis of our evaluation, we conclude that the proposed TS revisions are acceptable.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION These amendments involve changes in recordkeeping, reporting or administrative procedures or requirements. Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility6 criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assess ment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
IV. CONCLUSION The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (50 FR 43026) on October 23, 1985, and consulted with the stateof outo h Carolina. No public comments were received, and the state of South Carolina did not have any comments.
-4 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 19, 1987 Principal Contributors: P. Moore H. Pastis