ML13326A519
| ML13326A519 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 11/17/1978 |
| From: | Ziemann D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13326A518 | List: |
| References | |
| DPR-13-A-038 NUDOCS 7812040012 | |
| Download: ML13326A519 (5) | |
Text
EREG,
Houb/nt ch o
9 LA UNITED STATES 0EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-T WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.
TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-13 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-206 Introduction By application dated December 30, 1977, (Proposed Change No. 68),
Southern California Edison Company (SCEC) requested an amendment to
's.'r //(
he Provisional Operating License No. DPR-13 for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 (SO-1).
fhe amendment would change thepffac4.i4 Technical Specifications to reduce the maximum allowable rate for pressurizer heatup from F hour to 1000F/hour.f y 1 ter dat August 5, 1977, e advised F'C that A it d si to eceive.c dit for se of re 'iratory e 1pment af ->
ter Dece er 28, 77, such se must be s stipul ed in guf o uide 8.1, rathe than as ecified in ts curren Techni 1 e icatio Sin the Tech cal Specif'cations co tain a evo t n rovi on of te current pecificati on respi tory ot io, w dvi ed the EC that would del e this sp ificat on in a icens mendment ocessed a ter December 28, 1977.
Discussion and Evaluation t'4-1 Proposed Change No. 68 In August 1977, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., of Japan, noted an inconsistency in the pressurizer heatup rate stated in the-ir-Teehnica kV7 Specifications. Specification 3 4A.9-required 4hi"atuo rate of 2000F)hr; Specification 5.7.1, howeve required a heatup rate of 100 0 F/hr. This screpancy was reported to the Westinghouse.Electric Corporation (Westinghouse), who.then reviewed analysis of the pressurizer heatup rate and determined that the correct eatup rate is 100 0 F/hr, and that the correct cooldown rate is 200 0F/hr; the Technical Specifications for So>
KewaLmcae stated that pressurizer heatu and cooldown rates were 195 0 F/hr.
Westinghouse then notified the Nuclea Regulatory Commission (the Commission) and the licensee of this problem. Te requested amendment would correct the error in the pressurizer heatup ra limit.
-70 4 0O
Respiratory Protection Program On Ndv mber 29, 1976, the Commission published in the Federal Register, an amended Section 20.103 of 10 CFR 20, which became effective on December 29, 1976.
To receive credit for limiting the inhalation of airborne radioactive material, this revision requires that respiratory protection equipment be used as stipulated in Regulatory Guide 8.15.
Another requirement of the amended regulation is that-licensees authorized to make allowance for use of respiratory protection equipment prior to December 29, 1976, must have brought the use of this respiratory protective equipment into conformance with Regulatory Gvide 8.15 by December 29, 1977.
~our letter dated A4~ jP
'7.u advised that pursuant to 10 CFR 20.103 (c) and (f), if y desir e to receive 'redit for the use of respiratory protective equip atm4N
'.~yos-acAJAt after December 28, 1977, such use must be as srt4palateqd in Regulatory Guide 8.15 rather than as specified in yggrygegtgada, Technical Specifications. The respiratory protective program described 7'4f.
in Section 6.12 of tTechnical Specifications differs fromuit na 44third-ein Regula ry Guide 8.15. In view of the provisions of Section 6.11 of the Technical Specifications, which require con formance with 10 CFR 20, the fact that 10 CFR 20.103 no longer requires specific authorization to employ respiratory protective equipment, and the revocation provisions of Technical Specification 6.12.3, we conclude that merely deleting Section 6.12 is appropriate. Since this modifica tion applies only to changing from a plant specific respiratory protectior 7
program to an industry-wide program, in accordance with our request and O'pot Ton and had no objection to this action, we find it to be purel administrative in nature and acceptable.
Accordingly, pursuant to 10 CFR 20.103 (c) and (f), if #e4Adesiresto receive credit for use of respiratory protective equipment at (2ft &after December 28, 1977, such use must be as stipulated in Regulatory Guide 8.15 rather than as was specified in deleted Technical Specification 6.12.
Based on the revocation provision of the specifi cation on respiratory protection noted above and in the absence of prior writer ection fromfyet, we have deleted Specification 6.12 in its entirety from the Technical Specification.s of License No.J>P..k'4 Environmental Consideration We have determined that this amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having.made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact, and pursuant to 10 CFR §51.5(d)(4) that an environmental impact statement, or negative declaration and environ mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and_(3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commlssion's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
- 7.
-2 In designing the pressurize Westinghouse performed a thermal stress analysis which analyzed the fa 1 ting from a heatup rate of 1000F/hr and a cooldown rate of 2000 F/hr. This analysis meets the standards of the ASME Code,Section III,*which requires that the analysis be based on a usage factor. The usage factor represent the fraction of the fatigue life ( the total amount of stress that a particular component is designed to handle), with a usage factor of zero implying that no stress has been exerted on the component,and a usage factor of one implying.that the stress exerted on the component is equal to the amount of stress that the component is designed to handle. For any piece of equipment, certain components receive more stress than others.
For the pressurizer, this component is the surge nozzle, which has a usage factor of.0.9 for the design numbers listed above.
This usage factor is such that if the heatup and cooldown rates used in the analysis were exceeded more than a few times, the actual usage factor for the surge nozzle would exceed 1.0, which is not allowable under the ASME Code.
Thus, we conclude that reducing the heatup rate limit from f9foF/hr to 100 0F/hr is necessary to maintain thermal stresses in the pressurizer to allowable levels. For the same reasons, we further conclude that Pthe cooldown'rate limitt Pnj jpji-h eH t Because the current Technical Specification provision authorized higher rates of pressurizer heatup than the correct limit, the 4uestion arose as to whether the correct limit of 100 0F per hour has been exceeded in the past. Discussions with Westinghouse indicate that this is unlikely)
This is because system capabilities and Technical Specification limits on the rate of reactor coolant system heatup and pressurization ffci yreclude_ pressurizer heatup rates in excess of 500F to SF per
__eriz h
rtof pe'hu to, 10F F p h
pfter hur.
Aysscorgy wemponclude hat treonl con pressuired yS
- boundary to assure that no similar inadvertent error appears in any other portion of the applicable Technical Specifications.
This action will be confirmed by Westinghouse.
Southern California Edison Company 2 -
November 17, 1978 cc w/enclosure.
Rollin E. Woodbury, Vice President and General Counsel Southern California Edison Company Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770 Chickering & Gregory, General Counsel ATTN: C. Hayden Ames, Esquire San Diego Gas & Electric Company Ill Sutter Street San Francisco, California 94104 Mission Viejo Branch Library 24851 Chrisanta Drive Mission Viejo, California 92676 Mayor City of San Clemente San Clemente, California 92672 Chairman Board of Supervisors County of San Diego San Diego, California 92101 California Department of Health (w/SCEC application dated 12/30/77)
ATTN:
Chief, Environmental Radiation Control Unit Radiologic Health Section 714 P Street, Room 498 Sacramento, California 95814 Chief, Energy Systems Analyses Branch (AW-459)
Office of Radiation Programs U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Room 645, East Tower 401 M Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20460 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX Office ATTN:
EIS COORDINATOR 100 California Street San Francisco, California 94111