ML13331A831
| ML13331A831 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 11/07/1985 |
| From: | Baskin K, Beoletto J Southern California Edison Co |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13331A829 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-61453 NUDOCS 8511130267 | |
| Download: ML13331A831 (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 Application No. 131 Generating Station
)
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY and SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90, hereby submit Amendment No. 131.
This amendment consists of Proposed Change No. 154 to the Technical Specifications incorporated in Provisional Operating License No. DPR-13 as Appendices A and B.
Proposed Change No. 154 will revise Technical Specification Table 4.1.2, "Minimum Equipment Check and Sampling Frequency."
This proposed change will delete the requirement to obtain a gross activity sample of the reactor coolant at least once every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> in Modes 5 and 6. Currently, Table 4.12 requires a sample of the reactor coolant at least once every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> in all Modes.
8511130267 1351107 PR,5000206 pD DC PDR
-2 In the event of conflict, the information in Amendment Application No. 131 supersedes the information previously submitted.
Based on the safety analysis provided in the Description of Proposed Change and Safety Analysis, it is concluded that (1) this 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 reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by the proposed change.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 170.12, as revised in 49 FR 21293 dated May 21, 1984, the review of the Proposed Change contained in Amendment Application No. 131 has been determined to require a fee of $150.00. The fee of $150.00 is herewith remitted.
MJT:4068F
0I
-3 Subscribed on this 7' day of
/9'/:
Respectfully submitted, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY By Kenneth P. BaskiTn Vice President Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7_5 day of
, /Pf OFFICIAL SEAL AGNES CRABTREE NOTARY PUBLIC -
CALIFO!IIA PRiNCiPAL O;:FCL. 1N LOS ANGELES COUNTY My Commission Expires Aug. 27, 1986 Not /y Public in and for the County of Los Angeles, State of California My Commission Expires:
Z /ffl Charles R. Kocher James A. Beoletto Attorneys for Southern California Edison Company By "A)
Jam.
Beoletto
-4 Subscribed on this day of
(_d___IC___
,/P&_5~.
Respectfully submitted, SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY By 7 J. C. Holcombe Vice President Subscribed and sworn to before me this el3Atday of dc9(-6-- )'9 OFFICIAL SEAL KATHLEEN M. BABCOCK NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY My Commission Exp. Aug; 18, 1989 Nota'ry Public in and for the County of San Diego, State of California My Commission Expires:
David R. Pigott Samuel B. Casey Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe Attorneys for San Diego Gas & Electric Company By_________
David R. Pigott
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULA! ZY 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. 131 was served on the following by deposit in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, on the 8th day of November
, 1985.
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 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
- 3. Rengel Atomic Power Division Westinghouse Electric Corporation Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 A. I. Gaede 23222 Cheswald Laguna Nigel, 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 James A noletto n Assist~an Counsel Southern alifornia Edison Company
Description of Proposed Change DPR-13-154
- and Safety Analysis This is a request to Revise Technical Specification Table 4.1.2, Minimum Equipment Check and Sampling Frequency.
Existing Specification The following excerpt from Table 4.1.2 illustrates the existing specification which this proposed change will revise:
Table 4.1.2 MINIMUM EQUIPMENT CHECK AND SAMPLING FREQUENCY Check Frequency la.
- 1. Gross Activity At least once per 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
Samples Determination Required during Modes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Proposed Specification Item la. would be revised as follows:
la.
- 1. Gross Activity At least once per 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
Samples Determination Required during Modes 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Description 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix 3 and Technical Specification 4.3.1 require under various conditions a containment integrated leak rate test (ILRT) to verify the leakage integrity of the containment sphere. This requires the containment to be pressurized to 49.4 psig and leakage rate measured as a function of pressure reduction. Currently item la of Table 4.1.2 requires a gross activity sample of the reactor coolant at least once every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> in all modes. Obtaining an RCS gross activity sample requires a breach of the containment sphere. Therefore, sampling during the ILRT would invalidate the test results.
Based on experience the time necessary to pressurize containment and complete a leak test is approximately 52 hours6.018519e-4 days <br />0.0144 hours <br />8.597884e-5 weeks <br />1.9786e-5 months <br />. Since this leaves very little margin to complete the sampling requirements of Table 4.1.2, this proposed change would revise the mode applicability of this requirement to be consistent with the Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications (STS).
The STS require this type of sampling during Modes 1 through 4 only. Conformance with this mode applicability will allow the
-2 necessary flexibility to conduct future containment ILRT's without scheduling constraints mandated by the RCS gross activity sampling requirements.
Safety Analysis The proposed change discussed above shall be deemed to involve a significant hazards consideration if there'is a positive finding in any one of the following areas:
- 1. Will operation of the facility inaccordance with the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No The basis for obtaining gross activity samples of the RCS is to detect potential increase in primary coolant activity which could impact the site boundary dose consequences in the event of a transient or accident.
The associated Limiting Condition for Operation (Specification 3.1.1) provides time constraints for power operation with increased RCS activity, but no constraints are given for Modes 5 and 6 operation. The premise on which RCS activity limits exist is to limit the potential transfer of RCS inventory beyond the fission product barriers.
The worst.
case accident scenario would be a steam generator tube rupture during power operation.
Assuming significant failed fuel prior to the transient, 10 CFR Part 100 dose limits may be exceeded.
Since the proposed change will eliminate requiring RCS gross activity sampling for Modes 5 and 6 only, at which time the RCS pressure is very low with little or no potential for transfer of RCS activity beyond the fission product barrier, the consequences of a transient (for which sampling is intended to limit) will not be impacted by the change.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the 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 the 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 change involves sampling of the RCS during periods when the RCS is at very low or atmospheric pressure. Based on this low pressure, the probability of transfer of the RCS activity beyond the fission product barriers is very low. Since the premise for RCS activity sampling is ultimately to mitigate the dose consequences of a transient during startup or power operation, the consequences of operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed change are bounded by the more limiting conditions experienced during startup and power operation, and therefore, will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
-3
- 3.
Will operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response
No The margin of safety for Specification 4.1.1 is established by the associated LCO (Specification 3.1.1). This LCO contains provisions to continue startup or power operation for pre-established durations in accordance with the projected dose consequences for a transient during that period of time.
Since the assumed transient requires a high pressure in the RCS, and the proposed change relates only to periods when the RCS is at very low or atmospheric pressure, the margin of safety will not be impacted by the proposed change. Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed change will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Safety and Significant Hazards Consideration Determination Based on the Safety Evaluation, it is concluded that: (1) the proposed change 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 or the environment as described in the NRC Environmental Statement.
MT:4896F:701'6u