ML13331B483
| ML13331B483 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 10/25/1990 |
| From: | Beoletto J, Ray H SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13331A504 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9010300186 | |
| Download: ML13331B483 (11) | |
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
)
Supplemental Part of Unit No. 1 of the San Onofre Nuclear
)
Amendment Application Generating Station
)
No. 176 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY and SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90, hereby submit a Supplement to Amendment Application No. 176.
This Supplement consists of Revision 1 to Proposed Change No. 216 to Provisional Operating License No. DPR-13. Revision 1 of 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 typographical errors and editorial oversights.
In addition, as a result of issuance of 10 CFR 55, an administrative change to Section 6.4.1, Training, is also included.
In the event of conflict, the information in Supplemental Amendment Application No. 176 supersedes the information previously submitted.
PDRADO 901025 P
DoCK 05000206 I pNU6
-2 Based on the significant hazards analysis provided in the Description of Proposed Change and Significant Hazards Consideration Analysis of Revision 1 to 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.
10
-2 Subscribed on this of.5 day of 66yo-e
, 1990.
Respectfully submitted, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY By:
Harold B. Ray Senior Vice PresidenL Subscribed and sworn to before me this
~5 day of O
Notary Publit t aid for the State of California NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Orange HOLLY D. ROSET My Appointment Exp. 7-18-94 James A. Beoletto Attorney for Southern California Edison Company By: 0es A.
Beoletto
Revision 1 DESCRIPTION AND SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION ANALYSIS OF REVISION 1 TO PROPOSED CHANGE NO. 216 TO THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-13 Revision 1 to Proposed Change No. 216 is a request to revise the Appendix A Technical Specifications to correct typographical errors and editorial oversights. This revision supersedes PCN 216, dated March 6. 1990, and is a complete rewrite. In the event of any conflict, the information in this supplement supersedes PCN 216 dated March 6, 1990.
DESCRIPTION The Technical Specifications contain typographical errors and editorial 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. In the original PCN, this section was incorrectly changed to delete the reference to ANSI N18.1-1971. This revision will correct Section 6.4.1 to retain the reference to Section 5.5 of ANSI Standard N18.1-1971 for the retraining and replacement training of non-licensed unit staff. SCE has determined that the appropriate manner to correct these items is to submit 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 Proposed Change No. (PCN) 216 was initially submitted March 6, 1990 to resolve editorial discrepancies within the Technical Specification. Subsequently it was recognized that typographical and editorial errors were missed by the original PCN. To improve the quality of the Technical Specifications, this revision to PCN 216 revises the Technical Specifications to correct these items.
The list below identifies each typographical error or editorial 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 1.0-5 Under STAGGERED TEST BASIS (a), in the last line "an" should be "1n."
Revision 1 Page 1.0-6 Under VENTILATION EXHAUST TREATMENT SYSTEM, in the fourth line "absorbers" should be "adsorbers."
Page 2.1-2 In the first line "for a given set" should be deleted since it is a repeat from page 2.1-1. Under maximum Safety System Settings item (1) in the last line "50% narrow range level" should be "50% level."
Unit 1 only uses a one-range level instrument.
Page 2.1-3 In the third paragraph the last line delete the comma after "occur."
In the fourth paragraph, the third line "conditions" should be "condition." In first paragraph of item (3), the second to the last line, "satisfy" should be "satisfies."
In item (4), the seventh line "assumptions" should be "assumption."
Page 2.1-5 In Item 1 "< 50% Pressurizer Narrow Range Level" should be
"< 50% Level."
This change is made to reflect the use of only a one-range level instrument.
Page 3.1-10 In specification B(2), the second line, "reference nil ductility temperature, RTNDT" should be "Reference Nil Ductility Temperature (RTND)." In specification D, the last line "Figures" should be "Figure." In the Basis, the first line "Nil Ductility" should be "Nil-Ductility."
Page 3.1-11 In the second paragraph, the third line "in the Table" should be "in Table."
Page 3.3-2 Under item (4), the last paragraph, the third line, the period after "625 cc/hr" should be deleted.
Page 3.3-4 In the fifth paragraph, on the fourth line, "absorption" should be "adsorption."
Page 3.3-6 In the Basis, the second line, "condensation" should be "condensate."
Page 3.3-10 In the Basis, the second paragraph, the third line, "enshire" should be "ensure."
Page 3.4-2 The discussion on this page should have been deleted with the issuance of NRC Amendment No. 125 dated April 24, 1989.
Section 3.4 pages will be renumbered to reflect deleting this discussion. Pages 3.4-3 to 3.4-5 are now 3.4-2 to 3.4-4.
Page 3.5-11 In the Basis, the first paragraph, the fourth line, "affects" should be "effects."
Revision 1 Page 3.5-21 For the Reactor Coolant System Subcooling Margin Monitor and (Table 3.5.6-1) the Neutron Flux (Wide Range) Total Number of Channels were improperly placed in the Minimum Channels Operable column.
This error is corrected by moving the values to the correct position.
Page 3.5-23 In item (d)(i), "Fow" should be "Flow."
In footnote *
(Table 3.5.7-1)
"trip of 1" should be "trip if 1."
Page 3.5-27 For item.(1)(b), Steam Generator Blowdown Effluent line (R (Table 3.5.8.1) 1216), the Minimum Channels Operable and Action numbers are improperly placed. This is corrected by placing the numbers in the correct columns.
Page 3.5-28 In Action 19, the fourth line a comma should be added after (Table 3.5.8.1)
"exists."
Page 3.5-33 In Item 2a., under the Measurement Range for the Wide (Table 3.5.10-1) Range Gas Monitor (R-1254) incorrectly reads "10"-10" mCi/cc." This should read "10"-10" sCi/cc" to reflect the proper range of operation for the instrument.
Page 3.6-2 In the first line, event should read "Open reactor coolant system." In the last paragraph, valves "POV 9A and POV 10A" should be "CVS-301 and CVS-313."
This change in the valves identification reflects a change in the P&IDs.
Page 3.6-3 In Action A, the third line, add a comma after "open."
Page 3.8-1 In Specification A.3, the first line, delete the comma after pool."
Page 3.8-3 In paragraph 7 and B.2, "insure" should be "ensure."
Page 3.9-1 In the Basis, the second paragraph, the third line, "FSAR" should be "FSA."
In the fourth line, "valid. The" should be "valid, the."
Page 3.11-2 In the Basis, the third line, "factor" should be "factors."
In the eighteenth line, "to functional" should be "to the functional.
Page 3.12-1 In Specification C, the third line, "with" should be "within." In the Basis, the second paragraph, the second line, "absorber" should be "adsorber."
Page 3.13-1 In Applicability, "supperssors" should be "suppressors."
Page 3.13-2 In the third paragraph, the first line, "snubber" should be "snubbers."
Revision 1 Page 3.14-1 In the Basis, the second paragraph, the sixth line "systems" should be "system."
Page 3.14-11 In Action A, the second line, "3.7-6" should be "3.14.5.1."
In Action B, "provision" should be "provisions."
Page 3.14-13 For Fire Zone 2P, the "20"" elevation should be "20'."
For (Table 3.14.5.1) Fire Zone 9A, the "14"" elevation should be "14'."
Page 3.14-15 In Applicability, "instrument" should be "instrumentation."
Page 3.14-22 The Third paragraph, fifth, tenth and eleventh lines, "ASS/DSS" should be "ASD/DSD."
Page 3.15-1 In Specification A, the fourth line, "8" should be "B."
Page 3.16-1 In Specification A, the first line, add "due" after "rate."
In the Basis, the last sentence "limit"should be "limits."
Page 3.18-3 In item 1, under Sampling and Collection Frequency, the (Table 3.18.1) third line "an" should be "as."
Under Type and Frequency of Analyses, in the eleventh line, "time" should be "times."
Page 3.18-4 In item 3(d), under Sampling and Collection Frequency, (Table 3.18.1)
"data" should be "days." In item 4(a), under Sampling and Collection Frequency, in the fifth line, "it" should be "if", in (1) "parch" should be "perch", in (3) "Hollunks" should be "Mollusks." Under Type and Frequency of Analysis, "an" should be "on."
Page 3.19-1 In Action Item B.1, "not" should be added after "program" and-add a comma after "satisfied."
Page 3.20-1 In the Objective, "the limits set in" should be added after "exceeding."
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 4.1-7 In Item 11, under the frequency column, "Monthly, when the (Table 4.1.2) reactor is critical and prior to returning the reactor to critical when the period of subcriticality extended the test interval beyond one month" should be added. This omission resulted from the issuance of NRC Amendment 134, which deleted Item 10 of Table 4.1.2 without changing Items 11, 12, and 13.
Items 11, 12, and 13 referred to Item 10 under Frequency. In Items 12 and 13, under the frequency column, "Same as Item 10 above" should be "Same as Item 11 above."
Revision 1 Page 4.1-24 In the Applicability, the first line, "an" should be "and."
In the Basis, the second line, "getting" should be "setting."
Page 4.2-1 In Specification A(1) the second to last line "NV-851 A and 8", should read "HV-851 A and B."
Page 4.2-2 In Specification A(4), the second line "8" should be "B." In Item B(1)(c), the third line the comma after "agitation" should be deleted.
Page 4.2-4 In the Basis, the second paragraph, the ninth line, "HV-851 A and 8" should be "HV-851 A and B."
In the third to last line, "l.e" should be "i.e."
In the last line a comma should be added after "possible."
Page 4.2-5 In the first paragraph, the seventh line "Theequation" should be "The equation." In the third paragraph, the fifth line, "its" should be "the," and the comma after "borated" should be deleted.
Page 4.2-7 In note (a), the second line, "n" should be "in."
Page 4.3-4 In Item C, the second line, "System))" should be "System)."
Page 4.3-7 In Specification B.1, "a" should be added after "on."
Page 4.3-8 In the Objective, the second line, "and" should be added after "detection."
Page 4.6-1 In the Basis, the seventeenth line, ""background" should be "background".
Page 4.6-6 In the Objective, the first line, "an" should be "and." In the second line, "radionuclies" should be "radionuclides."
Page 4.8-1 In Specification, the first line, "computer"-should be "computed."
Page 4.10-1 In Specification A(2)(a), the third line, "of" should be added after "100%."
Page 4.12-1 In Specification A, the fifth line, "0" should be "D."
Page 4.16-3 In Specification D.3, the last paragraph, the last line, "F" should be "E".
This resulted from issuance of NRC Amendment 133, deleting Specification C, Special Inspections, and the renumbering of the following specifications.
Page 4.18-2 Under Sediment, "kG" should be "kg."
Revision 1 Page 6.2-2 In f(6), the second line, "I" should be "1."
In addition to these changes, this revision 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 Appendix A of 10 CFR 55 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.
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 versions of the technical specifications.
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 editorial oversights and update the Technical Specifications does not represent a 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. The proposed change will improve the quality of the technical specifications. The proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not affect accident probabilities or consequences. The changes provide corrections to typographical errors and editorial 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.
Revision 1
- 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 create any new or different 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.
- 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 concluded that operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
SAFETY AND SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS DETERMINATION Based on the above Safety Analysis, it is concluded that: (1) Proposed Change No. 216 does not constitute a significant hazard consideration as defined by 10 CFR 50.92; and (2) there is a reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by the proposed change. - Existing License Condition - Proposed License Condition PCN216.RLK1 0
ATTACHMENT 1 EXISTING TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION