ML13331A369
| ML13331A369 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 03/06/1990 |
| From: | Southern California Edison Co |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13331A368 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9003130185 | |
| Download: ML13331A369 (9) | |
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 No. 176 Part of Unit No. 1 of the San Onofre Nuclear
)
Generating Station
)
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY and SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90, hereby submit Amendment Application No. 176.
This amendment consists of Proposed Change No. 216 to Provisional Operating License No. DPR-13. Proposed Change No. 216 modifies the Technical Specifications incorporated in Provisional Operating License No. DPR-13 as Appendix A.
Proposed Change No. 216 is a request to revise the Appendix A Technical Specifications to correct the discovered errors and oversights.
In addition, as a result of issuance of 10 CFR 55, an administrative change to Section 6.4.1, Training, was also necessary.
Based on the significant hazards analysis provided in the Description of Proposed Change and Significant Hazards Consideration Analysis of Proposed Change No. 216, it is concluded that (1) the proposed change does not involve a significant hazards consideration as defined in 10 CFR 50.92, and (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by the proposed change.
9003130185 900306 PDR ADOCK 05000206 R
FEPC:
-2 Subscribed on this day of 1990.
Respectfully submitted, SlUTHTRW CALIURNIA LUIlUNTOMPANY By:
H.
. Ray t
Vic President Subscribed and sworn to befoye me this l
day off OFFICIAL SEAL YOMAR V. CLEARY Notary PublIc-Calfornia ORANGE COUNTY My Comm. Exp. May 8, 1992 Notar/ Public in and for the L)
Stat of California Charles R. Kocher James A. Beoletto Attorneys for Southern California Edison Company By:
James\\W. Beol eto
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-In-the Matter of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
)
EDISON COMPANY and SAN DIEGO GAS &
)
Doc-ket No. bu-Zue ELECTRIC COMPANY (San Onofre Nuclear
)
Generating Station, Unit No. 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of Amendment Application No. 176 was served on the following by deposit in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, on the 7th day of March
, 1990.
Benjamin H. Vogler, Esq.
Staff Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 David R. Pigott, Esq.
Samuel B. Casey, Esq.
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 600 Montgomery Street San Francisco, California 94111 L. G. Hinkleman Bechtel Power Corporation P.O. 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 C. J. Craig Manager U.S. Nuclear Projects I ESSD Westinghouse Electric Corporation Post Office Box 355 r i LLbuur yII, rrri i
ari idi i$230 A. I. Gaede 23222 Cheswald Drive Laguna Niguel, California 92677 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 Jame V1et
,1*
0 DESCRIPTION AND SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED CHANGE NO. 216 TO THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-13 This is a request to revise the Appendix A Technical Specifications to correct discovered errors and oversights.
DESCRIPTION The Technical Specifications contain several typographical errors and oversights that have been recently discovered. In addition, as a result of issuance of 10 CFR 55, an administrative change to the training section is required. SCE has determined that the appropriate manner to correct these items would be to generate a proposed change. This proposed change will clarify and return the Technical Specifications to their intended condition.
EXISTING TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION See Attachment 1 PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION See Attachment 2 DISCUSSION Following the reissue of the Technical Specifications by NRC Amendment No. 130 on August 21, 1989, it was determined that a number of typographical errors and oversights existed in the Technical Specifications. To improve the quality of the Technical Specifications, this proposed change revises the Technical Specifications to correct these items.
The list below identifies each typographical error or oversight and lists the location and correct form.
Page i On List of Effective Pages, page viii reads "90, 130."
This should read "90, 130, 131."
This change will reflect the intended change in Amendment 131.
For page 3.1-5, reference to Amendment 102 will be removed. This page was not affected by Amendment 102.
Page 2.1-5 Item #1 currently reads "<50% Pressurizer Narrow Range Level", this should read "<50% Level". This change was made to reflect the use of only a one-range level instrument.
Page 3.4.2 This page should have been deleted with issuance of NRC Amendment No. 125 dated April 24, 1989. The page will be removed and the section page numbers will be renumbered to reflect this change (Pages 3.4-3 to 3.4-5).
Page 3.5-21 The Total Number of Channels Available System Subcooling (Table 3.5.6-1)
Margin Monitor and Neutron Flux (Wide Range) were improperly placed in the Minimum Channels Operable column. This error is corrected by moving the values to the correct position.
w C
-2 Page 3.5-33 Item #2 Process Monitors, the measurement range for Wide (Table 3.5.10-1) Range Gas Monitor (R-1254) incorrectly reads "10'-10 mCi/cc". This should read "10--10' ACi/cc" since this reflects the proper range of operation for the instrument.
Page 3.6-2 In the last paragraph on this page, the valves "POV 9A and POV 10A" should read "CVS-301 and CVS-313". This change in the valves identification reflects a change in the P&IDs.
Page 3.14-11 Action A table "3.7-6" should read "3.14.5.1".
Page 3.18-4 This page contained several mistakes. Under Item #4 (Table 3.18.1)
INGESTION, "parch, Hollunks" and "an edible portions" should read "perch, Mollusks" and "on edible portions",
respectively.
Page 4.1-2 The note on the bottom of this table reads "Applicable to Item 6 in Table 2.1". This should read "Applicable to Item 7 in Table 2.1".
This oversight was due to more than one proposed change affecting Page 4.1-2 under review and approval by the NRC.
Page 4.1-24 The first line currently reads "(PORVs) an their" this will be changed to read "(PORVs) and their".
Page 4.2-1 Under Specification A(2) the second to last line reads "NV-851 A and 8", this will be changed to read "HV-851 A and B".
Page 4.2-2 Under Specification A(4) second line currently reads "8 is greater than" this will be changed to read "B is greater than", to reference the proper valve.
Page 4.2-4 Last paragraph, seventh to last line currently reads "Valve seat faces on HV-851 A and 8", this will be changed to "Valve seat faces on HV-851 A and B".
This correction will properly reference the valves.
In addition to these changes this proposed change revises Section 6.4.1 to reflect a change to 10 CFR 55. The rule was issued on March 25, 1987 and necessitates the removal of the references to ANSI N18.1 - 1971 and the supplemental requirements specified in Section A and C of Enclosure 1 of the March 28, 1980 NRC letter to all licensees. Therefore, this change updates and clarifies the section on training and page 6.4-1 will be changed to reflect this.
The above discussed proposed changes are all administrative in nature and, as such, do not create new accidents or modify existing accident probabilities, or impact safety margins. The purpose of the proposed change is to maintain an accurate and up to date Technical Specification and ensure consistency between the NRC and SCE version of the technical specifications.
-3 SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION ANALYSIS As required by-10 CFR 50.91(a)(1) this analysis is provided to demonstrate that the proposed license amendment to correct typographical errors and oversiats and uodate-the-lechnical SDecifications-does not representa significant hazards consideration. As demonstrated below, in accordance with the three factor test of 10 CFR 50.92(c), implementation of the proposed amendment was analyzed using the following standards and found not to:
- 1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or 2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident that from any accident previously evaluated; or
- 3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
- 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 The operation of San Onofre Unit 1 in accordance with this proposed change will not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The nature of the proposed change involves the clarification of the technical specifications to properly contain the correct information. Thus, the proposed change will improve the quality of the technical specifications by correcting errors in table numbers, valve numbers, typographical errors in spelling, and correction of other administrative errors.
The proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not affect accident probabilities or consequences. The changes provide corrections to typographical errors and oversights. It also updates the section on training to be consistent with 10CFR55. Therefore, it is concluded that operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed change will not involve a 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 kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No As stated above, the proposed revisions are administrative in nature and do not affect previously analyzed or create any new accidents.
Therefore, it is concluded that operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different king of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
-4
- 3. Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
As stated above, the proposed revisions are administrative in nature and do not impact any margin of safety. Therefore, it is conclIuded that operation o in rdarce WI Lhhis - pr seJ change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
SAFETY AND SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS DETERMINATION Based on the content and type of correction made to the Technical Specifications, it is concluded that:
(1) Proposed Change No. 216 does not constitute a significant hazards consideration as defined by 10 CFR 50.92; and (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. -
Existing License Condition -Proposed License Condition PCN2 16. CP1
ATTACHMENT 1