ML19312C514
| ML19312C514 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee, Surry  |
| Issue date: | 03/08/1978 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19312C511 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912160073 | |
| Download: ML19312C514 (3) | |
Text
-
l o'
/#....%.,
univso states NOCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'g wAswiscTON. o. C. 20655
~
.;g e,,. S SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF _ NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATIO SUPPORTING AMENCMENT NO. 60 TO LICENSE NO. CPR-38 iMENDMENT NO. 60 TO LICENSE NO. OPR-47_
bMENDMENT NO. 57 TO LICENSE NO. DPR-55 DUKE POWER COMPANY OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2 AND 3_
DOCKET _NOS. 50-269, 50-270 AND 50-287 Introduction By letter dated February 8,1978, Duke Power Company (DPC) requested, on a one time basis, an emergency Technical Specification change of the time within which to recair Reactor Building Valve 38S2 which had failed.
The extension would permit continued full power operation of the Ocenee Nuclear Station, Unit 3, with Valve 3BS2 inoperable for 72 consecutive hours. The request on the Technical Specification change was grantec on February 8, 1978. This Safety Evaluation docurn:nts the Staff's review.
Discussion During a surveillance test, Reactor Building Spray Valve 3352 failed to operate.
Technical Specification 3.3.4 requires two trains of Reacter Building Spray to be ocerable.
Technical Specification 3.3.E allcws a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> maintenance period after which the reactor must be placed in hot shutdown within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.
Due to difficulties, it was impossible to repair the valve in the specified time.
Therefore, DPC requested a Technical Specification amendment permitting a period of 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> to put the valve back in an operable condition.
The valve was successfully repaired and tested in this pericd.
Evaluation Reactor Building Soray systems aid in tne reduction of oressure in the Reactor Building and cleanuo of iodine after a postulated LOCA.
The twenty-four hours allcwed for a system to be inoperable is based on the assumption that maintenance activities are rcutine.
However, in the case of Valve 3BS2, difficulties in repair necessitated an additional time for repair.
7912160 o 7 3
~
2-There are two redundant Reactor Spray Systems on Unit 3.
There fore,
when one system is out of service, the redundant system is capable of performing its intended function, that is pressure reduction and cleanup.
DPC verified that the redundant Reactor Building Spray System and all containment cooling systems were operable prior to DPC's request for the emergency Technical Soecification change.
Even with no spray and no coolers, the post LOCA pressure would be only 54.6 psi.
Thus, with no containment spray, the Reactor Building design pressure of 59 psig would not be exceeded.
Also, no credit is taken in the sa'fety analyses for the removal of airborne iodine by the Reactor Building Spray Systems.
Thus, this change to the Technical Specification does not invalidate the FSAR analysis.
It is also considered that the probability of an accident during this short period of time is very small.
This change is consistent with the requirements specified in the Standard Technical Specifications (STS) for the containment spray systems.
The STS allow a 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> period of inoperability.
Based on our review of this change as sumarized above, we conclude that it is acceptable and will not result in a significant increase in the probability of consecuences of an accident, does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, and therefore does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that these 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 these amendments involve an action wnich is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and pursuant to 10 CFR s51.5(d)(4) that an envircnmental impact statement, negative declaration, or environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
1
- - + -
s i
3-
/
Conclusion We have :oncluded, 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 significant 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 4
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.
Date: March 8,1978 t-I l
f y
T UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NOS. 50-269, 50-270 AND 50-287 DUKE POWER CON ANY NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENCMENTS TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Comission) has issued Amendment Nos. 60, 60 and 57 to Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55, respectively, issued to Duke Power Company which revised Technical Specifications for operation of the Oconee Nuclear Station Unit Nos.1, 2 and 3, located in Oconee County, South Caiolina.
The amendments are effective February 8,1978.
These amendments revise the Technical Specifications to permit 3
on a one time basis, the Unit 3 Reactor Building Valve 3PSS to be inoperable for 72 consecutive hours.
This valve had failed during a surveillance test and an emergency Technical Specificaticn change was requested by the licensee which would permit continued full power operation of Unit 3 while for 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> while the vahe was repaired.
Tne application for these amendments complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission a rules and regulations. The Comission has made appropriate t
findings as required by the Act and the Ccmission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendments.
Prior public notice of these amendments was not required since the amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration.
77// 80W
o
?-
3 s
i I
i The Commission has determined that the issuance of these amendments will not result in any significant enviranmental impact and that pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4) an environmental impact statement, negative declaration, or environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with issuance of these amendments.
For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the application for amendments dated February 8,1978,(2) Amendment Nos.
57 o Licenses Nos, DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55, respectively, 60,60 and t
and (3) the Commission's related Safety Evaluation. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555 and at the Oconee County Library, 201 South Spring, Walhalla, South Carolina 29691. A copy of items (2) and (3) may be obtained upon request addressed to the U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention:
Director, Division of Operating Reactors.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this Sth day of March 1973.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION jfg4*/WSG
?
A.
chwencer, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Operating Reactors l
.. -