ML20204H338

Application for Rev 1 to Proposed Amend 101 to License DPR-54,incorporating Two Addl Items to Satisfy Definition of Operable,In Response to Commission .Nshc Evaluation Encl

ML20204H338
Person / Time
Site:	Rancho Seco
Issue date:	10/30/1984
From:	Reinaldo Rodriguez SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
To:	Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20204H344	List: ML20204H338 ML20204H368
References
RJR-84-492, TAC-43042, NUDOCS 8411120264
Download: ML20204H338 (4)

Text

{.

c W

esuun

~

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT O 6201 S Street, P.O. Box 15830, Sacramento, CA 95813; (916) 452-3211 AN ELECTRIC SYSTEM SERVING THE HEART OF CALIFORNIA RJR 84-492 October 30, 1984 DIRECTOR OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION Attn: DARRELL G EISENHllT. DIRECTOR DIVISION OF LICENSING V S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON DC 20555 DOCKET NO. 50-312 LICENSE NO. DPR-54

SUBJECT:

PROPOSED AMENDMENT 101, REVISION 1 In accordance with 10 CFR 50.59, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District hereby proposes to amend its Operating License DPR-54 for Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station Unit No. 1.

Included with this proposal is the No Significant Hazards Consideration Evaluation, as required by 10 CFR 50.92, for Proposed Amendment 101, Revision 1.

Attachments I and II to this submittal are the No Significant Hazards Con-sideration Evaluation and the Description of Proposed Changes for Proposed Amendment 101, Revision 1.

In response to Commission letter dated October 5, 1984, the District has incorporated, as part of the original submittal of Proposed Amendment 101, two additional items that will satisfy the definition of OPERABLE. As recommended by the Comission, a component or system shall be considered operable when its required auxiliaries are capable of performing their in-tended function.

In addition, the time allocated to attain cold shutdown where the required safety function is not maintained, either due to equipment failure or maintenance outage, has been revised to be in line with the Com-mission's recommended action.

The District considers this Proposed Amendment 101, Revision 1 to be exempt from fees since it is a revision to an amendment already covered under the

$4,000 submitted by check number 31550 dated January 1, 1984.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.101(a)iii, the state has been notified of this submittal for Proposed Amendment 101, Revision 1.

8411120264 e4to3o DR ADOCK 05000312 Yl PDR IlI RANCHO SECO NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION O 1444o Twin Cities Road, Herald, CA 95638-9799;(209) 333-2935

F 4

D. G. Eisenhut October 30, 1984 Should you have any questions concerning this proposal, please contact Ron W. Colombo at Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station.

i N

R. J. R drigue Executive Direc r, Nuclear Subscribed and swo,rn to before me on::rre n,2=n:w=u - me""""3 this /er day of Yeurn/cv,1984. ?! oO PATalci A K. GEISLER }

/1

, svuin i t, w: CanoINA s

} ! c =40 t

• * ;.' l g.mgp a o: FICE t'J g

iQ:3/ SACE *,\\tF,NTO COUNTY H

/X.

! tiy C$mmission Expires Fctrur.ry IS,1988 d 42 5.nunaam.:=.uaumnaeo:5cm=*4 ""'"

Ndtary Public

y l

ATTACHMENT I

-NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION EVALUATION FOR PROPOSED AENDENT -101, REVISION 1 DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT REQUEST In-response to Commission letter dated October 5, 1984, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District wishes to revise Proposed Amendment 101, " Definition of_0PERABLE", so that any deficiencies in the Rancho Seco Technical Specifica-tion definition of OPERABLE can be corrected.

In the above referenced letter, it was noted that upon review of the District's Proposed Amendment 101, two items of concern were not addressed. One item of concern was, "a component or system will be considered operable and will be capable of performing its intended function when its required auxiliaries are capable of performing their intended function." This stategent will be included as part of the OPERABLE definition as requested.

Secondly, the Commission suggested that a revision to the time allocated to attain cold shutdown, when the required safety function is not maintained either due to equipment failure or. maintenance outage, also be included in our Proposed Amendment. These re-visions have been reviewed by the District and incorporated into Rancho Seco Technical Specification Proposed Amendment 101, Revision 1.

BASES FOR NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of the stan-dards for making a "no significant hazards consideration" determination by providing certain examples (48 FR 14870). The District has reviewed these proposed changes with respect to the examples given and finds that the above revision request falls in the category of Commission example (ii), "A change that constitutes an additional limitation, restriction, or control not presently included in the technical specifications: For example, a more stringent sur-veillance requirement."

m

F w

ATTACHMENT II DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED CHANGES 1.

Section 1.3, Page 1-2, Definition of OPERABLE: Restriction (4) "its required auxiliaries are capable of performing their intended function",

has been added.

2.

Page 1-2a: This is a new page to allow for the continuation of page 1-2.

3.

Section 3.3.5, Page 3-21: This section includes a time allocated to bring the reactor to a cold shutdown condition in 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />.

"Should the re-dundant equipment er system as specified in Section 3.3.3 become inoperable, as defined in Specification 1.3, the reactor shall not remain critical and be placed in cold shutdown condition within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />."

4.

Bases, Page 3-22: Words have been included in the bases that clarify and describe the logic behind section 3.3.5.

.