ML16138A615
| ML16138A615 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 12/11/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16138A614 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8712220194 | |
| Download: ML16138A615 (5) | |
Text
oNRREG&,0 05 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 165 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-38 AMENDMENT NO. 165 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-47 AMENDMENT NO. 162 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 letter dated August 15, 1985, 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.
The proposed amendments would revise the TSs to correct typographical errors in several sections; correct a section title in the Table of Contents; address a change in nomenclature; update Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) references; delete out-of-date footnotes; delete an unnecessary section; change wording for clarification; and update organizationl charts that appear in the TSs.
II. EVALUATION 2.1 Typographical Errors (TS pages 3.3-1, 3.7-2, 3.7-3, 3.7-4, 3.1-17, and 3.5-11)
Page 3.3-1: In the present TSs, high pressure injection valves P-409 an HP-410 are mistakenly referred to as 3HP and the proposed changes would designate the valves as HP. This is a typographical error and does not change the physical characteristics of the valves.
Page 3.7-2:
The proposed changes would use the word "or" instead of "and"i TS 3.7.1(f)1. The TS designates which 125 VDC instrumentation and control batteries with an associated charger shall be operable.
For the operation on only one unit, only two batteries need be operable and the present TSs require more through the use of the word "and."
The word to be used should be "or."
Page 3.7-3: In TS 3.7.2(e) reference is made to section "f."
The proposed changes would refer to Section "g"; the appropriate section being referred to for DC systems.
Page 3.7-4: TS 3.7.2(f) on the bottom of page 3.7-3 would be relocatedo page 3.7-4. The actual text would not be changed.
8712220194 871211 PDR ADOCK 05000269 PPDR'
-2 Page 3.1-17:
In the Bases section on moderator temperature coefficient of reactivity, section A.2. refers to the uncertainty, in the reactivity measurement of 0.1 X 10 AK/K. The proposed changes would denote a plus and minus sign (+/-) instead of an underline before the uncertainty factor.
Page 3.5-11: In the present TSs, the Group 8 APSR are described as axial power shaping bank. The licensee proposes to revise the word bank to rods. Therefore, it would read "axial power shaping rods."
2.2 Table of Contents (TS page i)
Page i: In the Table of Contents, the proposed revision would change the entry for Section 1.2.3 from "Reactor Control" to "Reactor Critical". This revision would be consistent with the section title.
The proposed revision is purely administrative in nature.
2.3 FSAR Updates (TS pages 3.1-4 and 5.1-1)
Pages 3.1-4 and 5.1-1:
The proposed revisions would correct the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) references which were changed during Duke's July 1982 update. These references were mistakenly omitted in their February 13, 1984 application for amendment.
2.4 Station Health Physicist (TS page 6.1-1)
Page 6.1-1:
The proposed revision would change the job title of the site Health Physicists to Station Health Physicists. This revision is a change in nomenclature.
2.5 Special Exemptions Deleted (TS pages 3.1-1, 4.1-3, 4.1-4, 4.1-5, 4.1-6, 4.1-7, and 4.1-8)
Page 3.1-1: The present TS 3.1.1.c.1 has a footnote which states at, te requirements of Specification 3.1.1.c.1 are waived for Unit 1 until 11:59 p.m., October 29, 1982". Since this waiver has expired, the footnote may be deleted from the TSs.
Pages 4.1-3, 4.1-4, 4.1-5, 4.1-6, 4.1-7 and 4.1-8: Table 4.1-1 on instrument surveillance requirements is found on these pages. A double asterisk footnote states that, "a one-time extension is granted for the instrument calibration such that it be performed during the 1983 Unit 1 refueling outage, provided that such outage begins no later than July 16, 1983. Since this extension has expired, the footnote may be deleted from the TSs.
2.6 Single Loop Operation (TS pages iii, 3.1-19 and 6.6-5)
Page iii:
The proposed revision would delete any reference to sTnine Toop restrictions from the Table of Contents.
-3 Page 3.1-19: The proposed revision would delete TS 3.1.8 because it is obsolete and no longer applicable to Oconee. There are currently no plans to ever use this specification at Oconee. The original purpose for this section was to; (1) supplement the 1/6 scale model test information; (2) verify predicted flow through the idle loop, (3) verify that changes in power level did not affect flow distribution or core power distribution and (4) demon strate that the limiting safety system settings (pump monitor trip setpoint and reactor outlet temperature trip setpoint) could be conservatively adjusted taking into account instrument errors. In addition, this specification required prior Commission approval before it could be used.
In summary, this specification was included in Oconee Technical Specification to provide additional restrictions for single loop operation solely for the purpose of performing tests. During routine operations, single loop operation restriction is pro vided by Specification 2.3. Specification 3.1.8 is limited to when special tests are preformed, and in addition required prior Commission approval.
Thus, the deletion of Specification 3.1.8 would not result in the removal or decrease in any limitation, restriction or control.
Page 6.6-5:
The proposed revision would delete any reporting requirements associated with single loop restrictions.
2.7 Organization, Review and Audit (TS pages 6.1-1, 6.1-7 and 6.1-8)
Pages 6.1-1, 6.1-7 and 6.1-8:
The proposed revisions would update the Station Organization Chart and Management Organization Chart for Oconee Nuclear Station to achieve consistency with Duke Power's current organization. The proposed revisions would expand the current organization shown in the TS, but would not change its basic structure. However, the Shift Engineer's (STA) reporting requirements changed from the Operations Organization to the Integrated Scheduling Superintendent. This revision is consistent with NUREG-0737, Appendix C.
2.8 Audits (TS page 6.1-5)
Page 6.1-5:
The licensee proposed a revision to the TSs which was not addressed in the No Significant Hazards Consideration Evaluation or the Technical Justification. This revision would have deleted from the TSs Duke's commitments to Regulatory Guide 1.21, Revision 1, June 1974 and to Regulatory Guide 4.1, Revision 1, April 1975. This proposed revision is being denied because there was no technical justification given by the licensee.
2.9 Radioactive Effluent Release Report (TS page 6.6-2)
Page 6.6-2:
The proposed revisions would change several words to
-4 In Section 6.6.2, some wording would be changed. "Individuals" would be changed to "members of the public" to clarify which individuals. This change would be consistent with the current Standard Technical Specifications. "During the reporting period" would be used instead of "each quarter" and "each calendar quarter" would be consistent with, other Technical Specifications. In the first paragraph of page 6.6.2 would add clarification. However, in the second paragraph of the same page it would remove the requirement for a quarterly breakdown of gaseous effluents that is required in the Standard Technical Specifications and in Regulatory Guide 1.21, Revision 1, June 1984. "Container volume" would be changed to "total container volume, in cubic meters," for clari fication purposes. And, since 10 CFR Part 61 currently does not address types of containers "type of container" would be changed to "numbers of shipments." This change would be consistent with the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.21. Finally, a footnote would be added concerning Radioactive Effluent Release Reports to achieve consistency with other Technical Specifications. Although the Standard Technical Specifications allow for relaxing the re quirements of Regulatory Guide 1.21 to allow a one-year report for meterorological data onsite, the wording of this footnote is not clear that a year's worth of data will be supplied in the second half year Radioactive Effluent Release Report. These changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration. Changing "each quarter" to "during the reporting period" in paragraph 2 of page 6.6-2 is unacceptable as submitted and is not incorporated into the Technical Specifications.
Proposed additi5F-to the footnote on page 6.6-2 is unacceptable as submitted and is not incorporated into the Technical Specifications. The remaining pFEoosed changes are accepted as submitted and are incorporated into the Technical Specifications.
III. 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.
-5 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 43025) on October 23, 1985, and consulted with the staTe ofuth Carolina. No public comments were received, and the state of South Carolina did not have any comments.
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.
Principal Contributors: P. Moore H. Pastis Dated:
December 11, 1987