ML19312C518
| ML19312C518 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 02/08/1978 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19312C516 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912160077 | |
| Download: ML19312C518 (2) | |
Text
._
pn nnq,
('~,
g g'
UN!TED STATES
,7 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON g.
g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 9.
January 18, 1978 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 56 TO LICENSE N0. DPR-38 AMENCMENT NO. 56 TO LICENSE N0. OPR-47 AMENDMENT NO. 53 TO LICENSE NO. 0,PR-55 DUKE POWER COMPANY OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS NOS. 1, 2 AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-269, 50-270 AND 50-287 Introduction By letter dated September 14, 1977, Duke Power Company (licensee) requested revisions to the Oconee Nuclear Station Technical Specifications which would incorporate changes to the Oconee Unit No. 3 pressurization, heatup and cooldown limitations (pressure-temperature operating limit curves) and to the reactor vessel material surveillance program.
Discussion The existing Oconee Nuclear Station Technical Specifications curves for heatup and cooldown re applicable for 1.7 x 10o thermal megawatt-days (1.8 effective full power years).
The proposed change will extend this time to 4 effective full power years (EFPY).
Evaluation Heatuo and Cooldown Limitations The proposed revised Cconee Unit No. 3 pressure-temperature operating limit curves, Figures 3.1.2-lC, 3.1.2-2C and 3.1.2-3C are based on data from Babcock & Wilcox Report, " Analysis of Capsule OCIII-A From Duke Power Company Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit No. 3, Reactor Vessel Materials Surveillance Program," BAW-1438, dated July 1977.
The proposed curves are projected for S EFPY.
We have reviewed BAW-1438 and the proposed pressure-temperature operating limit curves.
Capsule A from Unit No. 3 contained specimens of weld metal WF 209-1.
This weld is not identical to the welds in Oconee Unit No. 3.
However, this weld has a similar chemical composition and was made using weld procedure similar to those for high copper Oconee vessel welds.
There-fore, we conclude that the properties of the limiting weld metals in the Oconee reactor vessels will be affected by irradiation in a manner similar 7912160677 P
to these WF 209-1 specimens.
Also, the Oconee Unit No. 3, Unit No. 2, and Unit No.1 neutron flux, flux spectrum and weld material mechanical properties are similar.
The Oconee Unit No. I pressure-temperature limits were approved on February 23, 1977, and were applicable for 4 EFPY.
The Oconee Unit No. 2 pressure-temperature limits were approved on November 4,1977, and were also applicable for 4 EFPY.
For the reasons stated in our Safety Evaluation Report issued February 23, 1977 on Oconee Unit No. 1, and on November 4, 1977 for Occnee Unit No. 2 we have concluded that the proposed temperature operating limit curves for Unit No. 3 should also be limited to 4 EFPYs of operation.
Based on our review of the Oconee Unit No. 3 pressure-temperature limits and the similarity of the Oconee Unit No. 3, Unit No. 2, and Unit No. I designs, materials and operating conditions, we conclude that the operating limits proposed for Unit No. 3 are in conformance with Appendix G, 10 CFR Part 50, and ar therefore acceptable.
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 which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and pursuant to 10 CFR 951.5(d)(4) that an environmental impact statement, negative declaration, or environmental 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 4
and do not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasor.able 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 reg-u1ations and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the 3
public.
Date: February 8, 1978 i
I
7590-01 t
t UNITED ST4115 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NOS. 50-269, 50-270 AND 50-2o7 CUKE PCWER CCMPANY NOTICE OF ISSUAPiCE_,0F AMENDMENTS TO FACILITY 0;EP;dIING LICENSES ine U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has issued i
Amencment 'ves. 56, 56 and 53 o Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-35, t
i DPR-47 and COR-55, res;ectively, issued to Duke Power Company which revised Technical Specifications for o;eration of the Oconee Nuclear Station Unit Ncs. 1, 2 and 3, loca:ed in Oconee Ccunty, South Carolina.
The amendments are effective aitnir. 30 days of the date of issuance.
These amendments revise the common Oconee Technical Specifications to incorporate cnanges to the Ocenee Unit No. 3 pressurization heatup and coolocwn limitations.
The application for these amendments complies with the standards and recuirements of tre Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations.
The Commission has made appro-priate findings as required by tne Act and the Comrission's rules and regulations in 1C CFR Chapter I, ahich are set forth in the license amend-ments.
Prior public notice of these amendments was not requied since the amenenents do net invcive a significant hazards consideration.
T e Cc:rission nas deternined that the issuance of these amendments will nct result in any significant environmental impact and that pursuant tc IC CFR s51.5(:)(;; an environmental impact statement, negative declara-l tior, or envircnTettal irpact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with i:suance of these amendments.
t 77//Mos2PC
/
2 For furtner details with respect to tnis action, see (1) the application for arendrents dated September 14, 197, (2 A. mend ent Ncs. 56, 50 and e3 to Licenses Nos. D?R-38, DPR-47 and DDR-55, respectively, (3) the Commission's related Safety Evaluation and (4) the Commission's Safety Evaluations dated February 23, 1977 and Novem.ber 4, 1977.
All of these items are available for public inspection at the Ccnmisison's Public Dc:ument Roc,1717 P Street, N. W., ac;"ington, D. C.
20555 and at the Oconee Ccunty Library, 201 South Spring, Walhalla, Soutn Carolina 29591.
A co;j of items (2), (3) and (4) may be obtained upon request accressed to the U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commissior., Washington, D. C.
20555, Attention:
Director, Division of Operating Reactors.
Dated at Bethesca, Maryland, this 8th day of February 1978.
FnP THE NUCLEAD REGULATORY COM.SSION
/
/
dd A. Schwencer, Chief Goerating Feactors Brancn =i Division of Operating Reactors L