ML19322B502
| ML19322B502 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1976 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19322B494 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912030376 | |
| Download: ML19322B502 (4) | |
Text
UNITED STATES 4
NUCLcAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k
0 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 l
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 29 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-38 SUPPOKIING AMENDMENT NO. 29 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-47 SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 26 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-55 DUKE POWER COMPANY OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-269, 50-270 AND 50-287 l
Introduction By letter dated March 10, 1976, Duke Power Company (the licensee) requested changes to the Technical Specifications appended to Facility Operating Licenses DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55 for the Oconee Nuclear Station. These changes consist of revisions to the Limiting Conditions for Operation and Surveillance Requirements for safety related air filter systems.
Discussion Three filter systems in the Oconee units are used to mitigate the radiological consequences of accidents and for which credit was taken in the analyses in the Safety Evaluations issued by the staff on December 29, 1970 and July 6, 1973. Based on the results of the analyses, we concluded that such consequences would be acceptable. The three filter systems referred to are the Penetration Room Ventilation System, the Hydrogen Purge System and the Spent Fuel Pool Ventilation System.
The present Technical Specifications for the Oconee Nuclear Station do not include certain provisions which we consider necessary to ensure high confidence that the systems will function reliably, when needed, at a degree of efficiency equal to or better than that assumed in the accident analyses, Therefore, by letters dated December 6,1974 and January 12, 1976, we requested that the licensee submit an application that would revise the Oconee Technical Specifications to the installed filter systems referenced above.
Included in our letters were sample technical specifications which identified the specific areas of concern.
By letter dated March 10, 1976, the licensee responded to our recommendations and submitted an application for amendment of the Oconee licenses.
7912030 3g
I t
Evaluation Penetration Room Ventilation System (PRVS)
The PRVS is an Engineered Safeguards system consisting of two separate trains which take suction on the Reactor Building Penetration Room within which the majority of the containment piping and electrical penetrations are located. Each train ccntains a fan and filter assembly. The filter assembly consists of a prefilter, a High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filter and a charcoal filter in ssries. Following a Loss-Of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) the reactor building isolation signal would place the system in operation by etarting both fans which discharge to the Reactor Building vent.
The current PRVS Technical Specifications include provisions limiting reactor operation which are not totally consistent with the guidance provided in the sample Technical Specifications.
In the licensee's Proposal, one of the two PRVS trains may be inoperable for a period of up to 7 days, provided the other train is demonstrated to be operable within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> and daily thereafter.
In addition, 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> has been specified as the maximum period of time allowed to shutdown the reactor should both PSRV trains become inoperable. Other changes proposed include more clearly I
defined procedures for existing surveillance requirements plus additional requirements to more fully demonstrate the operability of the system.
Hydrogen Purge System The Hydrogen Purge System consists of a portable purging station (common to all 3 units) and a portion of the PRVS.
In the event of a LOCA at one of the units, the portable purging station would be connected to permanently installed PRVS piping and would direct a purge discharge from the Reactor Building to the unit vent. The portable purging station consists of a purge blower, dehumidifier, filter train, purge flowmeter sample connections and associated piping and valves. The filter train consists of a prefilter, a HEPA filter and a charcoal filter.
The present Technical Specifications contain no Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO's for the Hydrogen Purge System. The licensee's proposal would add an LCO to allow the system to be inoperable up to seven days.
If not restored to an operable status within this time period, all three Oconee units would be required to be shutdown within the next 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br />.
This 7 day time period is acceptable in view of an independent analysis performed by the staff, as detailed in the safety evaluation issued July 6, 1973, which concludes that the Hydrogen Purge System would limit the hydrogen concentration to 4% even if the system is not placed in operation until 460 hours0.00532 days <br />0.128 hours <br />7.60582e-4 weeks <br />1.7503e-4 months <br /> (19.2 days) following a LOCA.
l l
f l
l l
l
-.-4---
w-
,w
,-,--r,
-m..
v.,-
v,.
.,,-,.,..,,~.,----,,--m,._
r
e licensee's proposal also includes changes to existing surveillance
- j ne g t the llydrogen Purge System.een2nirements plus additional requirements to d
~
- g 3en-nt Fuel Pool Ventilat!gn System t
-the staff's Safety Evaluation of Oconee Units 2 and 3 issued on July 6 h73 3. se concluded that offsite doses for the fuel handling accident wou
~Qe _-Jess than the guideline values of 10 CFR 100 We further concluded, aowe.ever, that iodine filters would be required in the spent fuel handling j etility exhaust vents to further reduce doses resulting from p edling accident.
a fuel
<ho c::he Reactor Building Purge Systlicensee has modified the spent fuel po ne fuel pool ventilation fans have been added dowustream of theem filt g wo : spent urgae system filter to provide redundant exhaust trains.
a' g,iltser con.ists of a prefilter The purge system s
, a HEPA filter and a charcoal filter in m er12e8-
%enedlation System which require that at least one train be i3 eine
-discharging through the Reactor Building purge filters whenever fuel e::nd n operation
, :ove:: ment within the storage pool or crane operation with loads over the p o p ge pool are in progress.
In addition, surveillance requirements have added to demonstrate the operability of Reactor Building Purge System geen filters and the Spent Fuel Pool Ventilation System Components.
sommary, the licensee has proposed changes to the Oconee Technical Opecifications which incorporate recommendations provided by ttte staff.
We have reviewed the licensee's proposal and conclude that the changes will belp to ensure the high confidence desired that the systems will f as assumed in the Oconee accident analyses.
unction changes to be acceptable.
We therefore find the proposed We have determined that the amendments do not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not res lt in any significant environmental impact.
u we have further concluded that the amendments involve an action which isHav insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and pursuant t 10 CFR S Sl.5(d)( 4) that an environmental statement, negative declaration, o
or envircnmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
1
O.
I t
4 Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the change does 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: August 6, 1976
't i
P e
-,.+-
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NOS. 50-269, 50-270 AND 50-287 DUKE POWER COMPANY NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTS TO FACILITY
_0PERATING LICENSES Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co mi 4
m ssion (the Commission) has issued Amendments No. 29, 29
, and 26 to Facility Operating Licenses No. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55
, respectively, issued to Duke Power Company which revised Technical Specificati ons for operation of the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, located in Oconee County, South Carolina.
The amendments are effective as of the date of issuance.
These amendments consist of revisions to the Limiting Conditi ons for Operation and Surveillance Requirements for safety 2elat d 1
e air filter arstems.
!I The application for the amendments complies with the standa d r s and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the A t) c, and the Commission's rules and regulations.
e The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules t '
and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license ame d n ments. Prior public notice of these amendments was not required since the amend ments do not involve a significant hazards consideration.
j The Commission has determined that the issuance of these amendments F
will not result in any significant environmental impact and that pursuant to 10 CFRf 51.5(d)(4) an environmental statement 3
, negative declaration or cnvironmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with issuance of these amendments.
i216 I
=
n'lpP % -
/
I 2
For further details with respect to the action, see (1) the application for amendmene.
dated March 10, 1976, (2) Amendments No.29,
29, and 26 to i.1 censes No. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55
, and (3) the Commission's related Safety Evaluation.
All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Do cument Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, D.C.
20555, and at the Oconee County Library, 201 South Spring Street, Walhalla, South Caroli na 29691.
A copy of items (2) and (3) may be obtained upon req uest addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
- 20555, Attention:
Director, Division of Operating Reactors Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 6th day of August 1976.
POR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO j
i I
cl/w1/W A
Thomas V. Wambach, Acting Chief Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Operating Reactors t
e i
I I
tram.
G 59