ML19325C944
| ML19325C944 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 10/04/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19325C943 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8910180189 | |
| Download: ML19325C944 (3) | |
Text
,-
~
'~
.~
n
]
g m.
x
,E
... 9 %.
~,
'"4 l
JM UNITED STATES
- [
p NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wAswiwarow, o, c.nosse R.... )..
g SAFETY' EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.77 O FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF ~
T
~
1 AND AMENDMENT NO. 65 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. NPF-15 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON-COMPANY SAN DIEG0' GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
.THE CITY OF~ RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
.THE CITY OF' ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA-1 SAN ON0FRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-361 AND 50-362
]
l.
L l'. 0 INTRODUCTION R
andApril4,)1989,SouthernCalifornia
.By letters dated May 25, 1988, Edison Company (SCE), et a1. (the licensees, requested to change the (2
p Technical Specifications for Facility Operating Licenses No. NPF-10 and j
y
_No. NPF-15 that authorize operation of San Onofre Nuclear Generating
)
f Station _(SONGS), Units 2and3-inSanDiegoCounty, California.-This
. request, designated as PCN-221, would revise Technical Specification 3/4.6.1.7, " Containment Ventilation System," to permit blind flanging.the 8-inch and 42-inch containment purge supply and exhaust lines in lieu of sealing closed the isolation valves and to revise-the allowable' duration that the 8-inch containment purge supply and exhaust isolation valves may be open. The proposed technical specification would permit':the 8-inch valves to be open as required for containment pressure control, for ALARA and respirable. air quality considerations for personnel entry, and for
. surveillance tests that require the valve to be open.
It would also separate the action' statements for the 42-inch and 8-inch valves should h
the. proposed Limiting Conditions for Operation-not be met.
The proposed action statements and surveillance requirements would (1) include the
. option to blir.d flange both the 8-inch and the 42-inch valves as a method to seal closed the valvesi (2) increase the action statement time for
. sealing closed the valves from I hour to 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />, (3) delete the Unit 3 limit of 3000 hours0.0347 days <br />0.833 hours <br />0.00496 weeks <br />0.00114 months <br /> per 365 days (prior to the third refueling outage)
L allowable open time for the 8-inch valves, and (4) would require only L
those 42-inch valves that are not blind flanged to be verified sealed L
closed at least once per 31 days.
8910180109 891004 ADOCKOSOOg1
' DR-i.
+
y sk l
y
+
Ig
- 2;--
2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION I
.l!'
The licensees' proposal would allow the 42-inch and 8-inch containment B
. purge supply'and exhaust lines'to be blind flanged in lieu of sealing p
' closed the isolation valves. The staff considers a blind flange to be t
an ' acceptable-isolation barrier in-lieu of an isolation valve if'it' is j
. testable. The licensees, however, have proposed wordin exempt blind flanges from Surveillance Requirement (SR)g which would 4.6.1.7.1 which E
f' requires all 42-inch valves:to be verified sealed closed at least once per
' 31 days. -SCE states that SR 4.6.1.1.a. which requires certain penetrations
- (including:the. purge supply and exhaust lines) to be verified closed'at least once per 31 days, covers the situation in which containment purge supply and exhaust isolation valves.are blind flanged. To clarify these g
requirements and to prevent the possibility of misunderstanding, the staff L
has proposed, and SCE has agreed, to modify the wording in SR 4.6.1.7.1 to include blind flanges and to reference SR 4.6.1.1.a.
This change is therefore acceptable.
The licensees' proposal to remove the 3000 hours0.0347 days <br />0.833 hours <br />0.00496 weeks <br />0.00114 months <br /> per 365 day limitation on the allowable open' time for the Unit 3 8-inch valves prior to the L.
third refueling outage is acceptable since this outage has been completed and the limitation is ro longer in effect.
The proposed technical specification would remove the 1000 hours0.0116 days <br />0.278 hours <br />0.00165 weeks <br />3.805e-4 months <br /> per 365 l
L days limitation on allowable open time for the 8-inch valves.
It would L
- permit-these valves to-be open as required for containment pressure control,' for ALARA and respirable air quality l considerations for personnel entry, and for surveillance tests that require the valve to be open; it would also include the statement that the valves "shall be closed to the maximum extent practicable." This change would limit the opening of the 8-inch valves to safety-related functions only, would allow flexibility in opening the valves for those required functions, and would clearly indicate the intent that the valves not be open any longer than is required for those purposes. Therefore, the proposed change is acceptable, s
The licensees' proposal to increase the allowable time for sealing closed the valves from I hour to 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> is consistent with the Combustion l
Engineering Standard Technical Specifications (STS) and with the current staff position. Therefore, this change is acceptable.
The proposed change adds.the requirement to leak test each blind flange.
This is consistent with the staff position, described above, which allows the'use-of blind flanges as long as they are subject to the same leak testing requirements as the sealed closed valves. Therefore, this change is acceptable.
3.0
SUMMARY
The proposed changes meet the requirements of Standard Review Plan Section 6.2.4 and follow the staff's guidelines. They will provide limitations
- --.s
-me.ee--
e-
--w w
s.w-
.., ~
,4
(
3 3
~.
on'the" allowable reasons for purging containment, and they will. allow m
more operational flexibility within those limitations. Therefore, the proposed amendment is acceptable, with the modification to the wording
. of SR 4.6.1.7.1 described above.
_.4.0 CONTACT WITH STATE OFFICIAL The NRC staff has advised the Chief'of the Radiological' Health Branch, 4
State Department of Health Services, State of California, of the proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration. No comments were received.
5.0 ENVIRON'(ENTAL CONSIDERATION o
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51,21, 51.32, and 51.35, an Environmental Assessment' and Finding of No Significant Impact has been prepared and published in -
L the Federal Register on August 16,1989(54FR33787). Accordingly, based E
upon the environmental assessment, the Comission has determined that the l
issuance of these amendments will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
6.0 CONCLUSION
l l-
- We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above. that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the t:
l ublic will not be endangered.by operation in the proposed manner..
p(2)-such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations and (3) the issuance of-the amendments will not be inimical j'
to the common. defense and security or to the health and safety of the L
public.
l
- Principal Contributor:
D. Hickman Date': October 4, 1989 1
l' L-o t'
i
- w or--
,vm
-m-,w-en--
--,,,,e,.n-,+va
-,wru
,w,,--.,e,-.-u,-~,a m-
-, - -