ML13310A695
| ML13310A695 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 12/30/1981 |
| From: | Dietch R, Gilman D SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC CO., SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13310A694 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8201070112 | |
| Download: ML13310A695 (9) | |
Text
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Application of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY and SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY for a Class 104 (b) License to Acquire, DOCKET NO.
50-206 Possess, and Use a Utilization Facility as Part of Unit No. 1 of the San Onofre Nuclear Amendment No. 103 Generating Station SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY and SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90, hereby submit Amendment No. 103.
This amendment consists of Proposed Change No. 108 to the Technical Specifications incorporated in Provisional Operating License No. DPR-13 as Appendices A and B.
Proposed Change No. 108 consists of a proposed revision to Appendix B Technical Specification 2.2.2, Added Process Chemicals, to raise the allowable phosphate discharge limit from 5,400 pounds per year to 60,000 pounds per year. This revision has become necessary because, as a result of the recent sleeving of the steam generator tubes, the chemistry control program has been changed. A reduction in the acceptable chloride limit has increased the blowdown rate. In addition, required phosphate concentrations have increased.
682007j26OO PDRADOK 05000206,
-2 In the event of conflict, the information in this Amendment No. 103 supersedes the information previously submi tted.
Accordingly, it is concluded that (1) the proposed change does not involve an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10 CFR 50.59, nor does it present significant hazards considerations not described or implicit in the Final Safety Analysis, and (2) there is a reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by the proposed change.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 170.22, Proposed Change No. 108 submitted as part of Amendment No. 103 is determined to be a Class III change. The basis for this determination is that this proposed change involves a single environmental issue and is deemed not to involve a significant hazards consideration.
In accordance with the letter dated October 22, 1981 from William 0.
Miller, Chief, License Fee Management Branch, Office of Adminstration, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Southern California Edison Company, this change to a non-radiological aquatic Limiting Condition of Operation is granted exemption from the fee requirement for Class III changes.
Accordingly, no fee is remitted herewith.
-3 Subscribed on this 30 day of December
, 1981.
Respectfully submitted, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY By Robert Dietch Vice President Subscribed and sworn to before me this 30 day of December, 1981 Notary Public in and for the County of
.PRINCIPALOFFICEIN Los Angeles, State of California S
E Sheia N.GautierMy Commission Expires Nov. 4, 1983 Sheila N. GauthierW My Commission Expires: Nov. 4, 1983 Charles R. Kocher James A. Beoletto Attorneys for Southern Calr "rniqEdso Compny By__ales R_.Koc Charles R. Kocher
-4 Subscribed on this /
day of Al'
?,,
Respectful ly submi tted, SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY By D. W. Gilman Vice President Subscribed and s on to before me this
/ff da y of ff*M -1 /'f/'
Notary Public in and for the County of San Diego, State of California Donna M. Takahashi My Commission Expires: /.2 OFFICIAL SEAL DONNA M. TAKAHASHI NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA David R. Pigott Principal Office in San Diego County Samuel B. Casey My Commission Exp. Jan. 27, 1984 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe Attorneys for San Diego Gas & Electric Company By David R. Pigott
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of SOUTHERN
)
CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
)
and SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC
)
Docket No. 50-206 COMPANY (San Onofre Nuclear
)
Generating Station Unit No. 1 )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of Amendment No. 103 was served on the following by deposit in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, on the _
day of Tanuary 9LR9L*
Henry J. McGurren, Esq.
Staff Counsel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 David R. Pigott, Esq.
Samuel B. Casey, Esq.
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 600 Montgomery Street San Francisco, California 94111 J. V. Morowski Bechtel Corporation P.O. Box 60860, Terminal Annex Los Angeles, California 90060 Michael L. Mellor, Esq.
Thelen, Marrin, Johnson & Bridges Two Embarcardero Center San Francisco, California 94111 Huey Johnson Secretary for Resources State of California 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, California 95814 Janice E. Kerr, General Counsel California Public Utilities Commision 5066 State Building San Francisco, California 94102
-2 J. Rengel Atomic Power Division Westinghouse Electric Corporation Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 A. W. Gaede P.O. Box 373 San Clemente, California 92672 Frederick E. John, Executive Director California Public Utilities Commission 5050 State Building San Francisco, California 94102 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Charles R. Kocher Attorney for Southern California Edison Company
Description of Proposed Change and Environmental Analysis Proposed Change No. 108 To The Technical Specifications Provisional Operating License DPR-13 This is a request to revise Appendix B Technical Specification 2.2.2, Added Process Chemicals.
Reason for Proposed Change As a result of the recent sleeving of the San Onofre Unit.1 steam generators, the chemistry control program has been changed. The changes have significantly altered the chemical usage in the secondary system and will result in an increased use of phosphates.
The acceptable chloride limit has been reduced from 1.0 ppm to 0.5 ppm.
Chloride concentration is routinely controlled through steam generator blowdown, therefore the blowdown must be increased. The blowdown will also reduce the phosphate concentration, necessitating more phosphate feed to stay within normal operating limits. In addition, the required phosphate concentrations have been increased by a factor of three as part of the revised chemistry control program. This will further increase the amount of phosphates discharged.
Existing Specification Technical Specification 2.2.2 presently reads, in part:
NaH 2PO4 "Phosphate:
5,400 lbs of Na2HPO 4 Na3PO4" The Bases for Technical Specification 2.2.2 presently reads, in part:
"Phosphates in the form of mono-, di-, and tri-sodium phosphate are added to the steam generators as a means of controlling tube corrosion and deposit formation.
Steam generator blowdown is released at a continuous rate of up to 25 gpm.
The resulting added concentration of.075 ppm at the discharge has not created an observed environmental impact.
The Specification provides assurance that releases of phosphates will not exceed those which have not impacted the environment in the past."
Table 5.8-1 in Technical Specification 5.8 presently reads, in part:
Maximum Added "Chemical Maximum Added Concentration (ppm) or Effluent Release (lb/day) at Discharge Phosphates, as ortho 84 0.075"
-2 Proposed Specification The above identified part of Technical Specification 2.2.2 would be revised to read:
NaH 2PO4 "Phosphate: 60,000 lbs of Na2HPO 4 Na3PO4" The above identified paragraphs of the Bases to Technical Specification 2.2.2 would be revised to read:
"Phosphates in the form of mono-, di-, and tri-sodium phosphate are added to the steam generator as a means of controlling tube corrosion and deposit formation. Steam generator blowdown is released at an average rate of about 15 gpm. On a routine basis blowdown is increased to about 350 gpm to facilitate the removal of any sludge build-up.
The resulting added concentration of phosphate to the discharge is calculated to be less than 1.0 ppm. To further protect the integrity of the steam generators, water maintained in the steam generators during extended shutdowns will be blown down if the concentration of chemicals leaching back into solution from the sludge pile becomes significant and/or prior to the units being returned to service. This would increase the phosphate concentration to a maximum of 7.5 ppm (two circulating water pumps - normal operation)/15.0 ppm (one circulating water pump) for short periods while the steam generators are drained. The above phosphate concentration values are well below the levels which would create any observed environmental impact. Therefore, this Technical Specification provides assurance that releases of phosphates will not be detrimental to the environment."
The above identified part of Table 5.8-1 in Technical Specification 5.8 would be revised to read:
Maximum Added "Chemical Maximum Added Concentration (ppm) or Effluent Release (lb/day) at Discharge Phosphates, as ortho 1500 7.5" Environmental Analysis The proposed Technical Specification change will increase the allowable phosphate discharge limit from 5,400 to 60,000 pounds per year. The increased amount of phosphate will normally result in a concentration of less than 1.0 ppm at the discharge during peak blowdown periods with infrequent maxima of less than 7.5 ppm (two circulating water pumps - normal operation)/15.0 ppm (one circulating water pump).
However, based on WASH - 1249, Toxicity of Power Plant Chemicals to Aquatic Life, June 1973, this concentration at the discharge is a small fraction of the toxicity limits for phosphates.
Therefore, this increase in allowable phosphate discharges will not have a detrimental impact on the environment.
The alternative to this proposed change would be blowdown holdup and treatment facilities to maintain phosphate discharge at the current level.
The cost of these facilities would be significant with no commensurate benefit to the environment.
-3 Accordingly, it is concluded that (1) the proposed change does not involve an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10 CFR 50.59, nor does it present significant hazard considerations not described or implicit in the Final Safety Analysis, and (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by the proposed change.