ML13316B135
| ML13316B135 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 10/21/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13316B132 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8810310109 | |
| Download: ML13316B135 (2) | |
Text
o0 0
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.111TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-13 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-206
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated May 26, 1988, Southern California Edison Company (SCE or the licensee) requested a change to the Technical Specifications appended to Provisional Operating License No. DPR-13 for operation of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1 in San Diego County, California.
2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUTION The current technical specifications allow the reactor to operate with Control Group 1 10% inserted over the operating power range. The proposed revision would preclude insertion of Control Group 1 and the Shutdown Groups from the fully withdrawn position during power operation and would incorporate Standard Technical Specification (STS) format and action statements.
The licensee states that the revision represents a formal restriction of a plant operation that was controlled administratively. The licensee further states that the revision will provide greater margins to fuel design limits.
The proposed revision does not revise or decrease any margins of safety.
The safety analysis assumptions, previously approved by the staff, which restrict Control Group 1 and Shutdown Group insertion and define the operation of the reactor with specified control groups at or above the insertion limits, remain unchanged. The proposed revision is an additional restriction which will assure that operation with Control Group 1 fully withdrawn is permitted by the revised technical specifications.
The staff agrees that operation of the reactor plant with this rod control configuration will lower peaking factors, limit the worst case rod ejection accident reactivity, and provide adequate shutdown capability.
_131010 SS02 PDR ADOfCK 050)206 P
-2 Maintaining Control Group 1 and Shutdown Groups in the fully withdrawn position has the positive effect on safe operation by reducing peaking factors-involved in transients and accidents, such as main steamline rupture and rod ejection accidents. The fact that future fuel cycles can anticipate longer life and diminish neutron leakage loading pattern s is strictly an operational flexibility issue and does not present a safety concern.
The staff finds the the proposed revision to disallow Control Group 1 and/or Shutdown Groups to be inserted during power operation does not change existing safe operating practices or reduce any margins of safety during power operation previously approved and; therefore, it is acceptable.
The changes incorporating STS format and action statements is to provide clarity and are also acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves changes in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part
- 20. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may 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 this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact state ment or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and (3) the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors: Frank Apicella Dated: October 21, 1988