ML13330A429
| ML13330A429 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 12/21/1981 |
| From: | Dietch R Southern California Edison Co |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13330A428 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112280326 | |
| Download: ML13330A429 (9) | |
Text
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Application of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
)
COMPANY and SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY )
for a Class 104(b) License to Acquire,
) DOCKET NO. 50-206 Possess, and Use a Utilization Facility as Part of Unit No. 1 of the.San Onofre Nuclear ) Amendment No. 102 Generating Station SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY and SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90, hereby submit Amendment No.
102.
This amendment consists of Proposed Change No.
105 to the Technical Specifications incorporated in Provisional Operating License No. DPR-13 as Appendices A and B.
Proposed Change No.
105 is a request to modify the existing Technical Specifications to be consistent with the current Standard Technical Specifications.
The proposed change is set forth in the enclosed Description and Safety Analysis for Proposed Change No. 105, which is incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof.
In the event of conflict, the information in this Amendment No.
102 supersedes the information previously submitted.
812280326 08122406 OCK05000206 PDR AS7~
D
-2 Accordingly, it is concluded that (1) the proposed change does not involve an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10 CFR 50.59, nor does it present significant hazards considerations not described or implicit in the Final Safety Analysis, and (2) there is a reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by the proposed change.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 170.22, Proposed Change No. 105, is exempt from a Class III fee.
This amendment, which results from a written Commission request for the application, clarifies technical specifications by conforming to the content of the Standard Technical Specifications. The amendment has minor safety significance and is issued for the convenience of the Commission. Based on these considerations, no fee is submitted herewith.
-3 Subscribed on this 21 day of December, 1981.
Respectfully submitted, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY B
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 21 day of December, 1981 Oi~
OFFICIAL SEAL
/ y).
SHEILA GAUTHIER Notary Public in and for the County of NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA Los Angeles, State of California PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY My Commission Expires: Nov.
4, 1983.
MyCommissionExpiresNov.4, 1983 Charles R. Kocher James A. Beoletto At rneys for Souther Ca ifornia Ediso Corn By
Subscribed on this/,
day of Respectfully submitted, SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY By Z
Subscribed and sworn to before me this Say of X4'-f/./
Not ry Public in and for the County of San Diego, State of California My Commission Expires:
OFFICIAL SEAL DONNA M. TAKAHASHI NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA Principal Office in San Diego County MY Commission Exp. Jan. 27,1984 David R. Pigott Samuel B. Casey Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe Attorney for San Diego Gas & El tric oa By.(
UNITED STATES OFAMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of SOUTHERN
)
CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
)
and SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC )
Docket No. 50-206 COMPANY (San Onofre Nuclear )
Generating Station Unit No. 1)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of Amendment No. 102 was served on the following by deposit in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, on the 24thday of December
, 1981.
Henry J. McGurren, Esq.
Staff Counsel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20545 David R. Pigott, Esq.
Samuel B. Casey, Esq.
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 600 Montgomery Street San Francisco, California 94111 John V. Morowski Bechtel Corporation P. 0. Box 60860, Terminal Annex Los Angeles, California 90060 Michael L. Mellor, Esq.
Thelen, Marrin, Johnson & Bridges Two Embarcadero Center San Francisco, California 94111 Huey Johnson Secretary for Resources State of California 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, California 95814 Janice E. Kerr, General Counsel California Public Utilities Commission 5066 State Building San Francisco, California 94102
-2 J. Rengel Atomic Power Division Westinghouse Electric Corporation Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 A. E. Gaede P. 0. Box 373 San Clemente, California 92672 Frederick E. John, Executive Director California Public Utilities Commission 5050 State Building San Francisco, California 94102 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
DESCRIPTION PROPOSED CHANGE AND SAFETY AN SIS PROPOSED CHANGE NO. 105 TO THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE DPR-13 This is a request for revision of Appendix A, Technical Specifications, and to amend the license thereby.
Reason for Proposed Change The NRC Licensing staff determined that the Inservice Surveillance Requirements for snubbers under the Standard Technical Specifications "should be resolved on a generic basis on the SEP plants as well."
(D. G. Eisenhut To All SEP Licensees, March 23, 1981).
When this program is implemented, there will he assurance of operable snubbers or enhanced confidence of timely detection of inoperable snubbers.
Existing Specifications The existing specifications are as constituted in Appendix A, Technical Specifications, sections 3.13, Shock Suppressors (Snubbers) Operability and 4.14, Shock Suppressors (Snubbers) Surveillance.
Proposed Specifications The proposed specifications are enclosed. The text follows the model Technical Specifications provided by the NRC Division of Licensing to the extent practicable; however, two substantive variations from the model are incorporated:
successful operability tests, performed on hydraulic snubbers which had (on visual examination) an uncovered port, determined an OPERABLE snubber; and the Functional Test Acceptance Criteria for Mechanical Snubbers shall be as delineated in 3.b of "Actions to be Taken by Licensees of Operating Reactors" in "IE Bulletin No. 80-01:
Surveillance of Mechanical Snubbers."
The format is quite different.
These proposed specifications differ to such an extent from the existing ones and from the NRC model that change bars are not feasible.
Safety Analysis The Inservice Surveillance required by the proposed Technical Specifications will enhance the timely detection of inoperable snubbers on safety related hydraulic systems and will provide confidence that there will be operable devices to protect safety related systems from effects of seismically and otherwise initiated dynamic loads. The condition of the plant in this regard will be auditable.
Engineering evaluations will be performed to determine if any deleterious effects had accrued from the detected state of inoperability and to establish the extent and intensity of subsequent surveillance.
The limiting conditions for operation and the surveillance standards of Proposed Change No. 105 will provide assurance of the reliability and availability of snubbers which could be required to mitigate the consequences of a natural phenomenon or accidents which may initiate dynamic loading.
Based upon the analysis provided above, it is concluded that-(1) the proposed change does not involve an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10CFR50.59, nor does it present significant hazards considerations not described or implicit in the Final Safety Analysis, and (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by the proposed change.
3.13 SHOCK SUPPRESSORS (SNUBBERS) OPERABILITY Applicability:
Applies to safety related shock suppressors (snubbers) delineated in Tables 3.13.1 and 3.13.2.
Objective:
To define operability requirements of snubbers required to protect safety related piping from unrestricted motion when subjected to dynamic loading as might occur during a seismic event or severe transient.
Specification: A. During MODES 1, 2, 3, and 4, all snubbers listed in Tables 3.13.1 and 3.13.2 shall be operable except as noted in 3.13.B through 3.13.D below.
B. Within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> of finding one or more snubbers inoperable, replace or restore the inoperable snubber(s) to OPERABLE status and perform an engineering evaluation per Specification 4.14.C on the supported component.
Alternatively, declare the supported system inoperable and follow the appropriate Specification for that system.
C. If the requirements of A and B above cannot be met, perform the actions required in Section 3.0.
D. If a snubber is determined to be inoperable while the reactor is in MODES 5 or 6, the snubber shall be made operable or replaced prior to reactor startup.
E. Snubbers may be added to safety related systems without prior License Amendment to Tables 3.13.1 and/or 3.13.2 provided that a revision to Tables 3.13.1 and/or 3.13.2 are included with a subsequent License Amendment request.
Bases:
All snubbers are required to be OPERABLE to ensure that the structural integrity of the reactor coolant system and all other safety related systems is maintained during and following a seismic or other event initiating dynamic loads.
Snubbers excluded from this inspection program are those installed on non-safety related systems and then only if their failure, or failure of the system on which they are installed, would have no adverse effect on any safety-related system.
The visual inspection frequency is based upon maintaining a constant level of snubber protection to systems. Therefore, the required inspection interval varies inversely with the observed snubber failures and is determined by the number of inoperable snubbers found during an inspection. Inspections performed before that interval has elapsed may be used as a new reference point to determine the next inspection.
However, the results of such early inspections performed before the original required time interval has elapsed (nominal time less 25%) may not be used to lengthen the required inspection interval.
Any inspection whose results require a shorter inspection interval will override the previous schedule.
-2 When the cause of the rejection of a snubber is clearly established and remedied for that snubber and for any other snubbers that may be'generically susceptible, and verified by inservice functional testing, that snubber may be exempted from being counted as inoperable. Generically susceptible snubbers are those which are of a specific make or model and have the same design features directly related to rejection of the snubber by visual inspection, or are similarly located or exposed to the-same environmental conditions such as temperature, radiation, and vibration.
When a snubber is found inoperable, an engineering evaluation is performed, in addition to the determination of the snubber mode of failure, in order to determine if any safety-related component or system has been adversely affected by the inoperability of the snubber. The engineering evaluation shall determine whether or not the snubber mode of failure has imparted a significant effect or degradation on the supported component or system.
To provide assurance of snubber functional reliability, a representative sample of the installed snubbers will be functionally tested during plant shutdowns at refueling outage intervals. Observed failures of these sample snubbers shall require functional testing of additional units.
Snubbers of rated capacity greater than 50,000 pounds are exempt from functional testing requirements because of the impracticability of testing such large units.
Hydraulic snubbers and mechanical snubbers may each be treated as a different entity for the above surveillance programs.
The service life of a snubber is evaluated via manufacturer input and information through consideration of the snubber service conditions and associated installation and maintenance records (newly installed snubber, seal replaced, spring replaced, in high radiation area, in high temperature area, etc...). The requirement to monitor the snubber service life is included to ensure that the snubbers periodically undergo a performance evaluation in view of their age and operating conditions. These records will provide statistical bases for future consideration of snubber service life. The requirements for the maintenance of records and the snubber service life review are not intended to affect plant operation.