ML13326A698
| ML13326A698 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 08/25/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13326A696 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8208310257 | |
| Download: ML13326A698 (2) | |
Text
,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 622TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-13 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY SAN ONOFRE UNIT NO..1 DOCKET NO. 50-206
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated June 25, 1982, Southern California Edison Company (the licensee) proposed changes to the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1 Technical Specifications. The change would modify Technical Specification 4.2.3, "Safety Injection System Hydraulic Valve Testing (Surveillance Requirement)" with regard to the testing interval.
2.0 DISCUSSION AND'EVALUATION Amendment No.
57 to Provisional Operating License DPR-13 dated November 5, 1981 added surveillance requirements to the San Onofre Unit No. 1 Tech nical Specifications that require periodic hot functional testing of the safety injection system hydraulic valves.
Technical Specification 4.2.3.1 currently requires the reactor be placed in mode 3 (hot standby) or mode 4 (hot shutdown) at lease once every 92 days to perform a hot functional test of safety injection system, hydraulic operated valves. The licensee's proposed change would modify the technical specifications to. allow for surveillance testing at an interval greater than 92 days if the test interval lapses with the reactor in mode 5 (cold shutdown) or mode 6 (refueling). In this-case, the hot functional test could be delayed until operation in mode 3 or mode 4 prior to the next entry into mode '2 (startup) if it is not practical to perform the test during periods of mode 5 or 6 operation.
The San Onofre Unit No. 1 safety injection system is not required to be operable in modes 5 and 6. Therefore, there is no safety related-require ment to perform a hot functional test of this system while in modes 5 and 6.
The licensee's proposal would require that the test be performed prior to achieving criticality if the test interval lapses when the reactor is in cold shutdown or refueling operation. Although the test interval could exceed 92 days, we find that the hot functional test prior to entering mode 2 will determine the operability of these valves prior to return to power. Based on our review, we find that the licensee's proposed change to the San Onofre Unit No. 1 Technical Specifications will result in an acceptable surveillance program and this program will continue to assure that any significant degradation of the safety injection system hydraulic valves will be detected in a timely manner. Thus,.we conclude-that the licensee's proposed change to the technical specifications is acceptable.
8208310257 820825 PDR ADOCK 0500020 P
-2
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
We have determined that the 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 951.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of fhis amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
We also conclude, 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, does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, and does not create the poscibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, 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 Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or the health and safety of the public.
5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The following individual conttibuted to this evaluation: W. Paulson Date; August 25, 1982