ML19317E855
| ML19317E855 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 11/04/1977 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317E852 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001031027 | |
| Download: ML19317E855 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _
(X,
~
f U 4'4 UNITED STATES t
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20656 ys SAFETY EVALUATION SY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 51 TO LICENSE NO. OPR-38 AMENDMENT NO. 51 TO LICENSE NO. OPR-47_
AMENDMENT NO. 48TO 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 June 6,1977, Duke Power Company (licensee) requested revisions to the Oconee Nuclear Station Technical Specifications which would incorporate changes to the Oconee Unit 2 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 are applicable for 1.7 x 10* thermal megawatt-days (1.8 effective full power years). Tne proposed change will extend this time to 4 effective full power years (EFPY).
Evaluation Heatuo and Cooldown Limitations The proposed revised Oconee Unit 2 pressure-temperature operating limit curves, Figures 3.1.2-18, 3.1.2-2S and 3.1.2-38 are based on data from Babcock & Wilcox Report, " Analysis of Capsule OCII-C From Duke Power Company Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Reactor Vessel Materials Surveillance Program," BAW-1437, dated May 1977. The proposed curves are projected for 6 EFPY.
i l
8001081 0 @
-. We'have reviewed BAW-1437 and the proposed pressure-temperature operating limit curves.
Capsule C from Unit 2 contained specimens of weld metal WF 209-1.
This weld is not identical to the welds in Oconee Unit 2.
However, this weld has a similar chemical composition and was made using weld procedure similar to those for high copper Oconee vessel welds.
Therefore we conclude that the properties of the limiting weld metals in the Oconee reactor vessels will be affected by irradiation in a manner similar to these WF 209-1 specimens.
Also, the Oconee Unit 2 and Unit i neutron flux, flux spectrum &nd weld material mechanical properties are similar.
The Oconee Unit 1 pressure-temoerature limits were approved on February 23, 1977, and were applicable for 4 EFPY.
For the reasons stated in our Safety Evaluation Report issued February 23, 1977 on Oconee Unit 1, we have-concluded that the proposed temperature operating limit curves for Unit 2 should also be limited to 4 EFPYs of operation.
Based on our review of the Oconee Unit 2 pressure-temperature limits and the similarity of the Oconee Unit 2 and Unit 1 designs, materials and operating conditions, we conclude that the operating limits proposed for Unit 2 are in conformance with Appendix G, 10 CFR Part 50, and are therefore acceptable.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that these amendments do not authorize a change in effluent tyoes 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 imoact and pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(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 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 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: November.4, 1977 i
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION _
DOCKET NOS. 50-269, 50-270 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 Amendment Nos. 51, 51 and 48 to Facility Operating Licenses
-Nos. OPR-38, OPR-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 Carolina. The amendments are effective within 30' days of the date of issuance.
These amendments revise the common Oconee Technical Specifications to incorporate changes to the Oconee Unit 2 pressurization heatup and cooldown limitations.
The application for these amendments complies with the standards and reouirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations.
The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission'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.
77pg9egy
o
- n
}
~
s 2-The Commission has determined that the issuance of these amendments will not result in any significant environmental 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 June 6, 1977, (2) Amendment Nos. 51, 51 and 48 to Liranses Nos. DPR-38, OPR-47 and DPR-55, respectively, (3) the Commission's related Safety Evaluation and (4) the Commission's Safety Evaluation dated February 23, 1977.
All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.
20555 and at the Oconee County Library, 201 South Spring, Walhalla, South Carolina 29691.
A copy of items (2), (3) and (4) may be obtained upon request addressed to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C.
20555, Attention:
Di rector,
Division of Operating Reactors.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 4th day of November 1977.
FOR THE NUCLF,AR REGULATORY COMM'ISSION
> Ib$h2/
A. Schwencer, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Operating Reactors L