ML16138A685
| ML16138A685 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 11/29/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16138A684 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8912070112 | |
| Download: ML16138A685 (3) | |
Text
d RREGO UNITED STATES NUL
- SION NULAR REGULATORY COM SO WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.178 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-38 AMENDMENT NO.178 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-47 AMENDMENT NO.175 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-55 DUKE POWER COMPANY OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2 AND 3 DOCKET MOS. 50-269, 50-270 AND 50-287
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated July 28, 1987, Duke Power Company (DPC) proposed changes to the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Technical Specifications (TS).
The proposed changes would delete a requirement contained in TS 3.3, "Emergency Core Cooling, Reactor Building Cooling, Reactor Building Spray, and Low Pressure Service Water Systems," to test redundant components for operability prior to initiating maintenance on any component in the High Pressure injection (HPI) System, Low Pressure Injection (LPI) System, Reactor Building Cooling (RBC) System, Reactor Building Spray (RBS)
System, and Low Pressure Service Water (LPSW) System. Several administra tive changes were proposed including the deletion of expired footnotes from TS 3.7.2, "Auxiliary Electrical Systems," 4.6.4, "Emergency Power Pericdic Testing," and 4.18, "Snubbers," as well as the addition of a footnote to Table 4.1-2, "Minimum Equipment Test Frequency."
2.0 EVALUATION The current Oconee TS contain a requirement to test redundant components in the HPI, LPI, RBC, RBS, and LPSW systems prior to initiating mainte nance on system components to ensure redundant component operability during the maintenance time interval. DPC has proposed the deletion of this requirement from TS 3.3, "Emergency Core Cooling, Reactor Builaing Cooling, Reactor Building Spray, and Low Pressure Service Water Systems."
Redundant component operability woulo then be based on verification of successful completion of all Surveillance Requirements applicable to the system on which maintenance will be perfor;ied.
Oconee TS 3.3 was compared acainst the Babcock and Wilcox Standard Techni cal Specificaticns (B&W STS) in NUREG-0103, Revision 4, to identify whether a similar redundant component testing requirement exists in the B&W STS. The B&W STS does not contain a requirement for testing redundant components prior to initiating maintenance. Hence, the DPC proposed amendments to delete this requirement will result in the Oconee TS more closely conforming to the B&W STS.
The NRC staff has reviewed the DPC technical justification for the proposed amendments and finds that it provides an adequate justification to rerove 8912 70112 :".)1129 PDR 0500026.9 P
_PDC:
-2 the redundant testing requirement from TS 3.3.
Removal of this require ment results in a reliance on the successful completion of the applicable Surveillance Requirements for TS 3.3 to demonstrate the operability of redundant components. For the HPI, LPI, RBS, RBC, and LPSW Systems, the Oconee Surveillance Requirements that ensure operability are provided in TS sections 4.0.4, 4.5.1, and 4.5.2.
TS section 4.0.4 requires the performance of inservice inspection and testing per the requirements of Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.
The Oconee Surveillance Requirements that demonstrate the operability of those systems governed by TS 3.3 are similar to the B&W STS Surveillance Re quirements that govern the analogous systems. Since it is the purpose of Surveillance Requirements to ensure that TS Limiting Conditions for Operation are met and since the Oconee TS as amended will rely on a set of Surveillance Requirements that are essentially analogous to the B&W STS requirements, the staff finds the proposed amendments to delete redundant testing of components from TS 3.3 to be acceptable.
DPC also proposed the deletion of expired footnotes from TS sections 3.7.2, 4.6.4, and 4.18 as well as the addition of a footnote for clarification purposes to TS Table 4.1-2.
Both the deletion of expired footnotes and the addition of a clarifying footnote are TS changes of an administrative nature.
As such, these proposed changes have no adverse impact on plant safety and the staff finds the proposed changes acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amendments involve changes to the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and change surveillance requirements. The staff has 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 the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, the 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 environ-mental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (53 FR 11369) on April 6, 1988, and consulted with the State of SoutICarolina. 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
-3 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 Contributor:
T. Reed, PDII-3/DRP-I/II Dated: November 29, 1989