ML13310A758
| ML13310A758 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 03/04/1983 |
| From: | Cotton G, Dietch R SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC CO., SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13310A759 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-82-17, GL-82-23, NUDOCS 8303090288 | |
| Download: ML13310A758 (7) | |
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. 110 Generating Station SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY and SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90, hereby submit Amendment No. 110.
This amendment consists of Proposed Change No. 121 to the Technical Specifications incorporated in Provisional Operating License No..DPR-13 as Appendices A and B.
Proposed Change No. 121 is a request to revise the review and audit requirements of Appendix A in response to NRC Generic Letters 82-17 and 82-23. This revision will modify the review and audit requirements for the emergency and security plans to be consistent with 10 CFR 50.54(t) and 10 CFR 50.54(p), respectively.
In the event of conflict, the information in Amendment No. 110 supersedes the information previously submitted.
6303090288 830304 PDR ADOCK 05000206 PDR PDR.
-2 Based on the safety analysis provided in the Description of Proposed Change and Safety Analysis, it is concluded that (1) the proposed changes do not involve an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10 CFR 50.59, nor do they present significant hazards 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.
This Technical Specification change is clarifying and made at the request of the Commission. In accordance with Generic Letters 82-17 and 82-23, no license fee is required.
-3 Subscribed on this day of i9{S, '
Respectfully submitted, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY By o bert Dietch Vice President Subscribpd and sworn ob fore m this S
day of C
a
/91 OFFICIAL SEAL DSTEWART FARQUHAR NOTARY PUBLIC - CALFORNIA LOS ANGELES COUNTY My comm. exires JUN 14, 198 Notary Public ir Vand/for the County of Los Angeles, State of California My Commission Expires:(/
/
Charles R. Kocher James A. Beoletto Attorneys for Southern California Edison Company BJa s A.
e4leTto
-4 Subscribed on this c,
day of,
Respectfully submitted, SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY By
'7 'G. D. Cotton Vice President Subscribed and sworn to before me this 4
day of
/ ff
,/-J",
Notary Public in and for the County of San Diego, State of California My Commission Expires:
.3 OFFICIAL SEAL ANNE R. SCHMIDT NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA Principal Office in San Diego County My Commission Exp. Oct. 11, 1983 David R. Pigott Samuel B. Casey Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe Attorneys for San Diego Gas & Electric Company ByDavidR.Piaott David R. Pigott V
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. 110 was served on the following by de st i the United States Mail, postage prepaid, on the Lk \\N-, day of
- ...'1983.
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 John V. Morowski Bechtel Power Corporation P.O. Box 60860, Terminal Annex Los Angeles, California 90060 Michael L. Mellor, Esq.
Thelen, Marrin, Johnson & Bridges Two Embarcadero 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 Commission 5066 State Building San Francisco, California 94102
-2 J. Rengel Atomic Power Division Westinghouse Electric Corporation Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 A. I. 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 JamSe.
BCeoleto Assist t Counsel Souther California Edi on Comoany
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED CHANGE AND SAFETY ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED CHANGE NO. 121 TO THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE OPR-13 This is a request to revise Appendix A, Technical Specification 6.5, Review and Audit.
Reason for Proposed Change Technical Specification 6.5 describes the organizations that are responsible for the review and audit of matters related to nuclear safety at San Onofre Unit 1. The purpose of this proposed change is to delete the requirements for a review of the Emergency Plan, in sections 6.5.1.15 and 6.5.2.8(e) and the Security Plan, in sections 6.5.1.14 and 6.5.2.8(f) to resolve the inconsis tency with requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(t) and (p) respectively. This is necessary to be responsive to an NRC request to resolve an inconsistency between the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54 and Standard Technical Specifications for performing audits of Emergency Preparedness Programs submitted to us by Generic Letter No. 82-17 dated October 1, 1982 and of Safeguards Contingency Plans (Security Plan) submitted to us by Generic Letter 82-23 dated October 30, 1982. The NRC stated in recent telephone conversations that there is no need to reiterate CFR requirements in the plant technical specifications.
Existing Specifications SEE ATTACHMENT A Proposed Specifications SEE ATTACHMENT B Safety Analysis This revision to the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 Technical Specifications deletes the review and audit requirements to be consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(p) and (t).
This change is administrative in nature and is more conservative than current Technical Specification require ments.
As a result, it is reasoned that (1) the proposed change does not involve an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10 CFR 50.59, nor does it present significant safety considerations not described or previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis, and (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by proposed change.
Attachment A -
Existing Specifications Attachment B -
Proposed Specifications