ML13310B566
| ML13310B566 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 07/23/1984 |
| From: | Paulson W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Baskin K Southern California Edison Co |
| References | |
| LSO5-84-07-016, LSO5-84-7-16, NUDOCS 8407270234 | |
| Download: ML13310B566 (5) | |
Text
July 23, 1984.
Docket No. 50-206 LS05-84-07-016 Mr. Kenneth P. Baskin, Vice President Nuclear Engineering Licensing and Safety Department Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770
Dear Mr. Baskin:
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED CHANGE NO,127 TO THE SAN ONOFRE UNIT NO. 1 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS By letter dated May 17, 1984, you forwarded Proposed Change No. 127, to the San Onofre, Unit No. 1 Technical Specifications. In reviewing your submittal, we find we need the additional information listed in the enclosure. It is requested this information be submitted to this office, with a copy to the NRC Region V Office* within 30 days of this letter.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Sincerely, Original signed by Walter A. Paulson, Acting Branch Chief Operating Reactor Branch #5 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 ATTN: G. B. Zwetzig DISTRIBUTION Docket NRC PDR LOCAL PDR ORB #5 Reading NSIC WPaulson CJamerson EMcKenna OELD ELJordan JNGrace ACRS (10) SEPB
- SEE PREVIOUS PAGE FOR CONCURRENCE DL:ORB #5* DL:ORB #5*
DL
- 5 EMcKenna:jc -CJamerson WP on 07/20/84 07/20/84 07 4/84 8407270234 840723 PDR ADOCK 05000206 P
- -PDR
Docket No. 50-206 Mr. K. Baskin, Vice President Nuclear Engineering Licensing and Safety Department Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, Ca 91770
Dear Mr. Baskin:
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED CHANGE NO 127 TO THE SAN ONOFRE UNIT NO. 1 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS By letter dated May 17, 1984, you forwarded Proposed Change No. 127, to the San Onofre, Unit No. 1 Technical Specifications. In reviewing your submittal, we find we need the additional information listed in the enclosure. It is requested this information be submitted to this office, with a copy to the NRC Region V Office* within 30 days of this letter.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Sincerely, Walter A. Paulson, Acting Branch Chief Operating Reactor Branch #5 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 ATTN: G. B. Zwetzig DISTRIBUTION Docket NRC PDR LOCAL PDR ORB #5 Reading NSIC WPaulson CJamerson EMcKenna OELD ELJordan JNGrace ACRS (10)
SEPB
- 5 DL:ORB #
DL:ORB #5 M enna:jc CJamerso WPaulson
/714o/84 07/p/84 07/ /84
Mr. Kenneth July 23, 1984 cc Charles R. Kocher, Assistant General Counsel James Beoletto, Esquire Southern California Edison Company Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770 David R. Pigott Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 600 Montogmery Street San Francisco, California 94111 Dr. Lou Bernath San Diego Gas & Electric Company P. 0. Box 1831 San Diego, California 92112 Resident Inspector/San Onofre NPS c/o U.S. NRC P. 0. Box 4329 San Clemente, California 92672 Mayor City of San Clemente San Clemente, California 92672 Chairman Board of Supervisors County of San Diego San Diego, California 92101 Director Energy Facilities Siting Division Energy Resources Conservation &
Development Commission 1516 - 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX Office ATTN:
Regional Radiation Representative 215 Freemont Street San Francisco, California 94105 John B. Martin, Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region V 1450 Maria Lane Walnut Creek, California 94596
Enclosure Request for Additional Information San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 Docket No. 50-206
- 1.
Regarding proposed Table 3.5.7-1, we note the following differences between the proposed Action Statements and the corresponding Action Statements of the Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications, Table 3.3-3, or the Action Statements in the present Facility Specifications:
Action Statement SCE Proposed Siandard Technical Specifications F
Restore to operable Restore to operable in 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> in 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> G
Restore to operable No delay; be in HOT STANDBY in in 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> 6 hours, HOT SHUTDOWN in following 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> SCE Proposed SCE Present I
HOT SHUTDOWN in COLD SHUTDOWN in 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> 36 hours Please provide technical justification for each of these differences or submit a revised request conforming to the Standard Technical Specifications (F and G) and present requirements (I).
- 2.
Regarding proposed specification 3.4.3.B we note this change, if approved, would permit one AFW pump to be inoperable for up to 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
We further note that such a period of inoperability is permitted by the Standard Technical Specifications for AFW systems having three pumps.
Since the San Onofre-1 AFW system presently has only two pumps, allowing plant operation for up to 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> with only one operable pump is clearly inconsistent with the Standard Technical Specifications and present facility specification 3.4.1(4).
Therefore, please provide justification for the 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> period or revise your application to provide a period consistent with your present technical specifications.
- 3.
Regarding the proposed revision to present sections 4.1.9.E and 4.1.9.C.2, although we support clear definition of test requirements (which this change proposes to provide), we find it difficult to reconcile "72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> after entering MODE 3" with the present requirement of "as soon as steam becomes available".
If steam is available upon entry into MODE 3, we consider a delay of three days in testing the AFW system to be excessive. This is because:
(1) periods of extended outage (30 days or more) frequently involve intense plant activity, some of which might inadvertently affect the AFW system, and (2) the basic policy, noted above, that with a two pump configuration, AFW pump inoperability should not be permitted for in excess of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
Therefore, we believe a more appropriate interval for requiring
-2 verification of the operability of the steam-driven AFW pump is 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
Therefore, please provide justification for the 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> period or revise your application to provide a "window" more consistent with your present technical specifications. We further note that comparable wording should be provided in both 4.1.9.C.2 and 4.1.9.E.