ML13326A914
| ML13326A914 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1992 |
| From: | Ray H Southern California Edison Co |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13326A913 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9211240333 | |
| Download: ML13326A914 (5) | |
Text
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Application of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
)
COMPANY and SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket NO. 50-206 for a Class 104(b) License to Acquire,
)
Possess, and Use a Utilization Facility as
)
Amendment Application Part of Unit No. 1 of the San Onofre Nuclear
)
NO. 208 Generating Station
)
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, and SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90, hereby submit Amendment Application No. 208.
This amendment application consists of Proposed Change No. 260 to the Unit 1 Operating License No. DPR-13. Proposed Change No. 260 is a request to change Technical Specifications 6.9.1.8, "Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report," and 6.14, "Offsite Dose Calculation Manual," following the provisions provided in 10 CFR 50.36a. This proposed change would extend the Radioactive Effluent Release Report submittal frequency from semiannual to annual.
9211240333 921118 PDR ADOCK 05000206 P
-2 Respectfully submitted, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY By:
Hgrold B.' Ray Senior Vice Pres (dnt State of California County of Orange On jI(gg~before me, lft Fif6J/i personally appeared LV personally known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
OFFICIAL SEAL MARIANE SANCHE2 Notary Public*Colifomia ORANGE COUNTY J MY COMb n Eres Signature James A. Beoletto Attorney for Southern California Edison Company By:
J es
.Beol etth
DESCRIPTION AND SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED CHANGE NO. 260 TO THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-13 This is a request to revise the following sections of the Technical Specifications for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 (SONGS 1):
Specification 6.9.1.8, "SEMIANNUAL RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENT RELEASE REPORT";
and Specification 6.14, "OFFSITE DOSE CALCULATION MANUAL (ODCM)."
The purpose of this proposed change is to ensure the Technical Specifications addressing the Radioactive Effluent Release Report are consistent with the recently amended 10 CFR 50.36a(a)(2).
EXISTING TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS See Attachment 1 PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS See Attachment 2 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES Technical Specification 6.9.1.8 addresses the Radioactive Effluent Release Report and establishes a semiannual submittal frequency. This proposed change extends the report submittal frequency to annual (vice semiannual), consistent with the recently amended 10 CFR 50.36a(a)(2).
Technical Specifications 6.14.2.1 and 6.14.2.3 address changes to the ODCM, and require any changes be submitted to the Commission along with the submittal of the Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report.
This proposed change identifies the Radioactive Effluent Release Report as "Annual" to be consistent with the new submittal frequency.
DISCUSSION In an effort to reduce regulatory burden, 10 CFR 50.36a, "Technical specifications on effluents from nuclear power reactors," was amended on October 1, 1992, (FR 39353) to extend the submittal frequency of the Radioactive Effluent Release Report from semiannual to annual.
The existing TS 6.9.1.8 requires a semiannual report covering the operation of the unit during the previous 6 months of operation to be submitted within 60 days after January 1 and July 1 of each year.
-2 The proposed change will require a report covering operation of the unit during the previous calendar year to be submitted before May 1 of each year.
The May 1 date was selected to ensure sufficient time to prepare a complete response, and is consistent with the May 1 due date established in TS 6.9.1.6 for the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report.
Existing TS 6.14.2.1 and 6.14.2.3 refer to the semiannual report. These areas of the TSs will also be modified to uniformly implement the proposed change.
These changes are consistent 10 CFR 50.36a(a)(2).
SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION ANALYSIS In accordance with 10 CFR 50.91(a)(1), the following analysis is provided to demonstrate that the proposed change does not represent a significant hazards consideration. According to 10 CFR 50.92(c), the proposed change discussed above is deemed to involve a significant hazards consideration if there is a positive finding in any of the following areas:
- 1.
Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response
No This change is administrative in nature and makes the TSs consistent with the amended requirement of 10 CFR 50.36a(a)(2). There is no change to plant design, operation, or configuration. Therefore, there is no significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
- 2.
Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed change create the possibility of a new or different type of accident from.any accident previously evaluated?
Response
No This change is administrative in nature and makes the TSs consistent with the amended requirement of 10 CFR 50.36a(a)(2).
There is no change to plant design, operation, or configuration. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
- 3.
Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response
No This change is administrative in nature and makes the TSs consistent with the amended requirement of 10 CFR 50.36a(a)(2). There is no change to plant design, operation, or configuration. Therefore, there is no reduction in a margin of safety.
-3 SAFETY AND SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS DETERMINATION Based on the above Safety Analysis, it is concluded that: 1) the proposed change does not constitute a significant hazards consideration as defined by 10 CFR 50.92; 2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by the proposed change; and 3) this action will not result in a condition which significantly alters the impact of the station on the environment as described in the NRC Final Environmental Statement.