ML19312C535
| ML19312C535 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 09/09/1977 |
| From: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19312C528 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912160093 | |
| Download: ML19312C535 (4) | |
Text
_
-s m
s h
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NOS. 50-269, EO-270 AND 50-287_
DUKE POWER COMPANY NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTS TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) has issued 46,46 and 43 to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38 Amendment Nos.
OPR-47 and DPR-55, respectively, issued to Duke Power Company which revised the Technical Specifications for operation of the Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit Nos.1, 2 and 3, located in Oconee County, South Carolina. The amendments are effective within 10 days after the date of issuance.
These amendrants provide for the operation of Oconee Unit 3 Cycle 2 with the cycle length extended from 265 effective full power days (EFPD) to 282 EFPDs.
The application for the amendments complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act),
and the Comission's rules and regulations.
The Comission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Comission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license Prior public notice of these amendments was not required amendments.
since the amendaents do not involve a significant hazards consideration.
The Comission has determined that the issuance of these amendments will not result in any significant environmental impact and that pursuant to 10 CFR s51.5(d)(4) an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
7912160 073
3.)
i 2-For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the application for amendments dated July 5, 1977, (2) Amendment Nos. 46,
46 and 43 to License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55, respectively, and All of these items (3) the Commission's related Safety Evaluation.
are available for public inspection at the Comission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, NW., Washington, D.C. and at the Oconee County 29691.
A Library, 201 South Spring Street, Walhalla, South Carolina copy of items (2) and (3) may be obtained upon request addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, Attention:
Director, Division of Operating Reactors.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 9th day of September 1977.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION
)
e
",,'/iwavecv A. Schwencer, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Operating Reactors
)
.L m \\ L(Mc-t-(
Yw. 5,O>
l PD-132 PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION NOTICING 0F PROPOSED LICENSING..MENDMENT
- SGIlow copy op Nr Company iEE:
Duke Power Company (DPC) 77
.ST FOR:
Change Technical Specifications to assure the operation f Oconee Unit 3 Cycle 2 is valid for a cycle extension 3 43-from 265 EFPD's to 282 EFPD's
- Ilow Docket
.i EQUEST DATE:
I, Dog
?ROPOSED ACTION:
(
)
Pre-notice Recommended (XX)
Post-notice Recommended
(
)
Detennination delayed pending completion of Safety Evaluation BASIS FOR DECISION: The Oconee Unit 3 Cycle 2 operation was approved by a
amendment issued October 22, 1976, based on a reload report submitted by Duke Power Company which considered a core lifetime of 265 EFPO's. The licensee is requesting a 6.47, extension of this cycle (17 EFPD) to provide flexibility in scheduling refueling operations. Technical Specifications have been proposed to provide for this minor extension and were prepared using the same methods approved for the reload report for this cycle.
The net result of this proposed Technical Specification change is to revise the operational control rod position limits and power imbalance limits.
These position limits are beipg revised to insure the existing Technical Specification limits on LOCAYshutdown margin (which are not being changed) will remain valid during this short cycle extension.
Since this change is a very small percentage extension of the previously approved reload which will be accommodated by minor changes in the Technical Specifications using already approved methods, we conclude that it does not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident, does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, and does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
Therefore, we recommend a post notice.
q m
1
)
i
/ !
PROPOSED NEPA ACTION:
(
)
EIS Required
(
)
Negative Declaration (ND) and Environmental Impact Appraisal (EIA) Required (XX)
No EIS, ND or EIA Required
, #8 I,
f
(
)
Determination delayed pending completion of EIA
%rk BASIS FOR DECISION: No change in effluent types or amounts and nor change in
, 79 power level.
3 43 Ilow,
f 4ch f; i
i CONCURRENCES:du-DATE:
- 1.. ]Lau.!
- 1. DM4eic ors
//Y /1 '
2.(>!sddwX' hln
- 3. [.~R. '
fey
'8 7 /M/ '/~'
- 4. OELD
/
b!7 i
t
...