ML061140442

License Amendment 350 Replacement of Reactor Building Emergency Sump Suction Inlet Trash Racks and Screens with Strainers

ML061140442
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	05/04/2006
From:	Olshan L Plant Licensing Branch III-2
To:	Brandi Hamilton Duke Power Co
Olshan L N, NRR/DLPM, 415-1419
Shared Package
ML061150507	List: ML061140442 ML061160014
References
TAC MC8127
Download: ML061140442 (9)

Text

May 4, 2006Mr. Bruce H. HamiltonVice President, Oconee Site Duke Power Company LLC 7800 Rochester Highway Seneca, SC 29672

SUBJECT:

OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 3, ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTS RE:REPLACEMENT OF REACTOR BUILDING EMERGENCY SUMP SUCTION INLET TRASH RACKS AND SCREENS WITH STRAINERS (TAC NO. MC8127)

Dear Mr. Hamilton:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued the enclosed Amendment No. 350 to RenewedFacility Operating License DPR-55 for the Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 3. The amendmentconsists of changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) in response to your application dated August 18, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated September 15, 2005, and January 5 andApril 6, 2006.The amendment revises TS 3.5.2.6 and 3.5.3.6 to accommodate the replacement of the reactorbuilding emergency sump suction inlet trash racks and screens with strainers. Similaramendments were issued for Units 1 and 2 on November 1, 2005; however, the amendment for Unit 3 was not issued at that time since the licensee had not completed its evaluation of theimpact of pipe whip, jet impingement and internally-generated missiles for Unit 3.A copy of the related Safety Evaluation is also enclosed. A Notice of Issuance will be incl udedin the Commission's biweekly Federal Register notice. Sincerely,/RA/Leonard N. Olshan, Sr. Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch II-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor RegulationDocket No. 50-287

Enclosures:

1. Amendment No. 350 to DPR-55

2. Safety Evaluationcc w/encls: See next page May 4, 2006Mr. Bruce H. HamiltonVice President, Oconee Site Duke Power Company LLC 7800 Rochester Highway Seneca, SC 29672

SUBJECT:

OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 3, ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTS RE:REPLACEMENT OF REACTOR BUILDING EMERGENCY SUMP SUCTION INLET TRASH RACKS AND SCREENS WITH STRAINERS (TAC NO. MC8127)

Dear Mr. Hamilton:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued the enclosed Amendment No. to RenewedFacility Operating License DPR-55 for the Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 3. The amendmentconsists of changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) in response to your application dated August 18, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated September 15, 2005, and January 5 andApril 6, 2006.The amendment revises TS 3.5.2.6 and 3.5.3.6 to accommodate the replacement of the reactorbuilding emergency sump suction inlet trash racks and screens with strainers. Similaramendments were issued for Units 1 and 2 on November 1, 2005; however, the amendment for Unit 3 was not issued at that time since the licensee had not completed its evaluation of theimpact of pipe whip, jet impingement and internally-generated missiles for Unit 3.A copy of the related Safety Evaluation is also enclosed. A Notice of Issuance will be incl udedin the Commission's biweekly Federal Register notice. Sincerely,/RA/Leonard N. Olshan, Sr. Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch II-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor RegulationDocket No. 50-287

Enclosures:

1. Amendment No. 350 to DPR-55

2. Safety Evaluationcc w/encls: See next page DISTRIBUTION:

PublicRidsAcrsAcnwMailCenter LPL2-1 R/FGHill(6 hard copies)RidsNrrDorlLplc(EMarinos)RidsNrrDirsItsb(TBoyce)RidsNrrPMLOlshan(hard copy)Princ Contr of SE/Tech BrRidsNrrLAMO'Brien(hard copy)RidsRgn2MailCenter(MErnstes)RidsOgcRpBSingal (DORL DPR)Package No.: ML061150507License Amendment No. ML061140442Tech Spec No.: ML061160014 NRR-058OFFICENRR/LPL2-1/PMNRR/LPL2-1/LAOGCBGCB/BDNRR/LPL2-1/BCNAMELOlshanMO'BrienSHamrickRKaras CM forEMarinosDATE4/13/065/4/064/25/064/17/065/4/06 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY DUKE POWER COMPANY LLCDOCKET NO. 50-287OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 3AMENDMENT TO RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSEAmendment No. 350Renewed License No. DPR-551.The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:A.The application for amendment to the Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 3 (thefacility) Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-55 filed by the Duke PowerCompany LLC, (the licensee) dated August 18, 2005, supplemented September 15, 2005, and January 5 and April 6, 2006, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations as set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I;B.The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of theAct, and the rules and regulations of the Commission;C.There is reasonable assurance (I) that the activities authorized by thisamendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with theCommission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I;D.The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense andsecurity or to the health and safety of the public; and E.The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of theCommission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.2.Accordingly, the license is hereby amended by page changes to the TechnicalSpecifications as indicated in the attachment to this license amendment, and Paragraph 3.B of Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-55 is hereby amended to read asfollows:B. Technical SpecificationsThe Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A, as revised throughAmendment No. 350, are hereby incorporated in the license. The licensee shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications. 3.This license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance and shall be implementedwithin 60 days of issuance.FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION/RA/Evangelos C. Marinos, Chief Plant Licensing Branch II-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Attachment:

Technical Specification ChangesDate of Issuance: May 4, 2006 ATTACHMENT TO LICENSE AMENDMENT NO. 350RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-55DOCKET NO. 50-287Replace the following pages of the Appendix A Technical Specifications with the attachedrevised pages. The revised pages are identified by amendment number and contain marginal lines indicating the areas of change. RemoveInsert3.5.2-5a3.5.2-53.5.2-5b3.5.3-3 3.5.3-3a 3.5.3-3b SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATIONRELATED TOAMENDMENT NO. 350 TO RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-55DUKE POWER COMPANY LLCOCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 3DOCKET NO. 50-28

71.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated August 18, 2005, as supplemented September 15, 2005, and January 5 andApril 6, 2006, Duke Power Company LLC (the licensee), submitted a request for changes to the Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 3, Technical Specifications (TSs). The requested changes would revise TSs 3.5.2.6 and 3.5.3.6 to accommodate the replacement of the reactor buildingemergency sump (RBES) suction inlet trash racks and screens with strainers. Similaramendments were issued for Units 1 and 2 on November 1, 2005; however, the amendment for Unit 3 was not issued at that time since the licensee had not completed its evaluation of theimpact of pipe whip, jet impingement and internally generated missiles for Unit 3.The supplements dated September 15, 2005, and January 5 and April 6, 2006, providedclarifying information that did not change the scope of the original application and the initialproposed no significant hazards consideration determination.

2.0 REGULATORY EVALUATION

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Generic Letter (GL) 2004-02, Potential Impact of DebrisBlockage on Emergency Recirculation During Design Basis Accidents and Pressurized Water Reactors, is part of the regulatory framework the NRC staff is using to address issuesassociated with Generic Safety Issue (GSI)-191, Assessment of Debris Accumulation on PWRSump Performance, for requirements to improve evaluation of plant capability to meet Title 10of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 50, Section 50.46(b)(5). The new strainers are functionally equivalent to the existing trash racks and screens formeeting requirements of 10 CFR 50.46(b)(5) for long-term cooling and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, Criterion 35 for emergency core cooling.

3.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION

The proposed change involves revising TS Surveillance Requirements 3.

5.2.6 and 3.5.3.6 touse the term "strainers" to replace the terms "trash racks and screens." This change is neededto reflect the replacement of RBES suction inlet trash racks and screens with strainer assemblies in response to NRC Generic Letter 2004-02. The new strainers are functionallyequivalent to the existing trash racks and screens for meeting the requirements of 10 CFR50.46(b)(5) for long-term cooling and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, Criterion 35 for emergency core cooling. The use of the generic term "strainers" can be used for both the existing and new designs, will not affect implementation of Surveillance Requirements 3.5.2.

6 and 3.5.3.6, andcan be used for implementation of corrective actions to address GSI-191.GSI-191 was established by the NRC to determine whether transport and accumulation ofdebris in pressurized-water reactor (PWR) containments following a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) would impede the long-term operation of the emergency core cooling system orcontainment spray system. The NRC is currently implementing its plan to have all PWR licensees evaluate the potential for excessive head loss across the containment sump screenand implement necessary actions to resolve concerns associated with GSI-191. This action plan includes review of all licensee responses to GL 2004-02 and plant audits as needed to confirm proper evaluation and corrective actions to address all technical issues associated with proper sump performance. The information that was provided by the licensee regarding jet impingement and pipe whip effects, and missile protection, will be reviewed as part of thisaction plan.The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's regulatory and technical analyses in support of itsproposed license amendment, which are described in Attachments 3, 4, and 5 of the licensee's August 18, 2005, submittal and finds these justifications acceptable.On November 1, 2005, similar amendments were issued for Units 1 and 2; however, theamendment for Unit 3 was not issued at that time since the licensee had not completed itsevaluation of the impact of pipe whip, jet impingement, and internally-generated missiles for Unit 3. By letter dated April 6, 2006, the licensee provided the results of these evaluations. The NRC staff has reviewed Duke's evaluation of pipe whip, jet impingement and internallygenerated missile impact on the emergency sump strainer. The sources and targets were identified by a walkdown of Unit 1 and applied to Unit 3 on the basis of similarity. Duke Calculations S-005 "Missile Evaluation for the Emergency Sump Strainer," and S-006, "Jet Impingement and Pipe Whip Evaluation for the Emergency Sump Strainer," document the walkdown results and perform the analysis of the findings. The calculations document that Unit 3 piping arrangement in the area of the RBES is similar to that of Unit 1 & Unit 2. The NRC staff concurs with the conclusions of these calculations. Based on this evaluation, the licensee concludes that the emergency strainer operability will not be compromised during aLOCA by missiles, jet impingement or pipe whip. The NRC staff concludes that there are nocredible missiles nor credible high-energy line break jets or pipe whips that could damage the strainer when needed during a LOCA.Based on the review of the calculations provided by the licensee, the NRC staff grants approvalof the proposed TS changes with regard to the evaluation for jet impingement, pipe whip and internally-generated missile impact of the RBES for Unit 3.

4.0 STATE CONSULTATION

In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the South Carolina State official was notifiedof the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

The amendment changes requirements with respect to installation or use of a facilitycomponent located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves nosignificant increase in the amounts and no significant change in the types of any effluents thatmay be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been nopublic comment on such finding (70 FR 51852). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be preparedin connection with the issuance of the amendment.

6.0 CONCLUSION

The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) thereis reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered byoperation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with theCommission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to thecommon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.Principal Contributors: T. Hafera S. Samaddar Date: May 4, 2006Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 cc:Ms. Lisa F. VaughnDuke Power Company, LLC 526 South Church Street P. O. Box 1006 Mail Code = EC07H Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006Manager, LISNUS Corporation 2650 McCormick Dr., 3rd Floor Clearwater, FL 34619-1035Senior Resident InspectorU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7812B Rochester Highway Seneca, SC 29672Mr. Henry Porter, DirectorDivision of Radioactive Waste Management Bureau of Land and Waste Management Dept. of Health and Env. Control 2600 Bull St.

Columbia, SC 29201-1708Mr. Michael A. SchoppmanFramatome ANP 1911 North Ft. Myer Dr.

Suite 705 Rosslyn, VA 22209Mr. B. G. DavenportRegulatory Compliance Manager Oconee Nuclear Site Duke Power Company, LLC ON03RC 7800 Rochester Highway Seneca, SC 29672Ms. Karen E. LongAssistant Attorney General NC Department of Justice

P.O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602Mr. R. L. Gill, Jr.Manager - Nuclear Regulatory Issues and Industry Affairs Duke Power Company, LLC 526 S. Church St.

Mail Stop EC05P Charlotte, NC 28202Division of Radiation ProtectionNC Dept of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources 3825 Barrett Dr.

Raleigh, NC 27609-7721Mr. Peter R. Harden, IVVP-Customer Relations and Sales Westinghouse Electric Company 6000 Fairview Road 12th Floor Charlotte, NC 28210Mr. Henry BarronGroup Vice President, Nuclear Generation and Chief Nuclear Officer P.O. Box 1006-EC07H Charlotte, NC 28201-1006