ML20215E957
| ML20215E957 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 12/12/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215E948 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-62846, TAC-62847, NUDOCS 8612230185 | |
| Download: ML20215E957 (4) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ - _
I
\\
UfMTED STATES f
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COANAISSION a
n me,ee=ovoa. o. c. asses
- g.....
SAFE 1V EVALUAff0N pY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION i
SUPPORTING AMEN 0 MENT NO. 56 T0 NPF-10 AND AMEN 0 MENT N0. 45 TO NPF-15
$00THEMN CAllFORNIA EDIS0N CORpANY. ET AL.
SAN ON0FRE NUCLEAR GENFRATING STATION. UNITS 2 8 3 DOCKET N05. 50-361 AND 50-362
1.0 INTRODUCTION
SouthernCaliforniaEdisonCompany(SCE,orthelicensee),onbehalfof itself and the other licensees. San Diego Gas and Electric Company, The City of Riverside, California, and The City of Anaheim, California, has submitted a number of applications for license amendments for San Onofre kuclearGeneratingStation(SONGS), Units 2and3. The MNC staff's I
evaluation of two of these applications is described below.
t 2.0 C15005510N proposed Change PCN-217
{
By letter dated June 13,1986, SCE requested that the SONGS 2 and 3 technical i
e spectfications concerning the fuel handling area vent (FHAV) gaseous l
airborne radiation monitor be changed. This monitor provides an alem 4
to the control room in the event of detection of high radiation levels in the fuel handling building (FHO) such as would occur from a postulated fuel handling accident, and sends a signal to the fuel handling isolation systemwhichtrips(isolates)thenormalventilationsystemandactivates the emergency (post-accident cleanup) ventilation system for the FNO.
]
These actions are intended to preclude unacceptable radioactivity releases frum a postulated fuel handling accident. The proposed technical specifics-i tion change would delete the noble oss allowable alam setpoint for the FHAV gaseous airborne radiation mon' tor, and substitute a requirement to i
set the alem at a value sufficiently high to prevent spurious alam/ trips yet sufficiently low to assure an alam/ trip should a fuel landling accident occur.
The staff has evaluated the licensees' proposal to revise the technical specification fnr the FHAV geseous airborne radiation m attor. The bases:
forourconclusionaretherequirementsofGeneralDesignCriterion(GCC) 64andtheguidelinesofStandardReviewPlan(SRP),NUREG.0800, Sections 11.5 and 15.7.4.
l The current setpoint of 140 ces above background for the FHAV monitor does '-
r j
not provide adequate margin above background during refuelfrig. San Onofre Units 2'and 3 have experienced several spurious.alams and fuel handling j
i l
etaasoiese6b212ADOCK 05 OO361 POR p
PDM u
. isolation system actuations during their refueling outages. These nuisance alelms and actuations are attributable to movement of irradiated fuel and fuel reconstitution activities. The proposed change will permit the trip setpoint to be set sufficiently high to prevent spurious alam/ trips yet sufficiently low to assure an alarm / trip in the event a fuel handling eccident should occur. Further, tre licensees have indicated that they have performed a study which confirms adequate monitor response to radiation releases from a postulated design basis fuel handling accident (60 broken fuel rods) and thereby ensure that any releases will be a small fraction of 10 CFP Part 100 limits with the proposed change. A similar technical spectfication change was previously incorporated in the San Onofre, Units 2 and 3 technical specifications for the containment purge isolation radia-tion monitor.
Base.o on the above, the staff concludes that the licensees' proposed technical specification change for the FHAV gaseous airborne radiation monitor (PCN-217) meets the requirements of GDC-64 for monitoring of potential radiation releases during normal and accident conditions in order to ensure that 10 CFP Part 100 limits are not exceeded. We, therefore, find the proposed change acceptable.
Proposed Change PCN-???
By letter dated August 28, 1966, SCE proposed changing Technical Specification 3/4.9.6. " Refueling Machine" to increase the minimum capacity of the refueling machine from 3000 pounds to 3200 pounds and the corresponding overload cutuff limit from 3350 pounds to 3550 pounds, in order to incorporate the added weight associated with the installation of a new removable TV camera assembly. At the staff's request, the licensees provided additional information supporting PCN-222 by letter dated November 4, IS86.
FCN-222 was proposed because SCE has decided to install a removable TV Cdmera unit Un the refueling machine as a replacement for the existing fixed TV camera in order to facilitate camera raaintenance. The removable TV camera unit is mounted on a stainless steel track installed alongside the refueling machine hoist box and is thus an integral part of the hoisi box. The new camera / track assembly adds 200 pounds additional weight to the hoist box. Because the refueling machine is used for movement of fuel 1
assemblier,, this additional weight must be accounted for in order to ensure its proper operation and to confirm that the design of the machine is not dif7Cted.
Th staff has evaluat9d the proposed change and has concluded that the refueling machine operational functions will not be affected by the installation of the r.ew TV camera unit as follows:
r e i
l k
y.
N ;
}
['
\\
[
a.
The load carrying capacity of the refueling machine is not challenged by 200 lbs. of edditional weight. The load carrying capacity of I
the hoist is 125% of the maximum existing service load of 3000 lbs.,
i.e. 3750 lbs., as verified by the vendor. Thus, the new service load of 3200 lbs. maximum which includes the hoist box, TV camera and fuel assembly, is within the vendor specified limits.
b.
NUPEG-0612 " Control of Heavy Loads" guidelines do not apply to the refueling machine since the new TV camera unit does not add sufficient weight for the machine load to be considered a heavy load as defined in NUREG-C612.
i c.
The margin between the actual weight (incorporating the new camera i
I unit)andthenewtechnicalspecificationsetpointsremains identical to the existing limiting condition for operation (LCO) requirements. Thus, the new setpoints provide the same safety w
l margin inherent in the currently existing technical specification.
l d.
The LCO load limit requirement (3550 lbs) would result in interruption of the fuel assembly hoisting should the overload q
'(
setpoint be exceeded. Thus, loads will remain below the 3750 lbs.
maximum recommended by the vendor and a fuel assembly drop accident is precluded.
x x
e.
Repair of the camera unit will only be undertaken with an empty hoist box (without fuel assembly in the refueling machine), thereby eliminating such actions as a possible means for causing a fuel assembly drop ' accident.
1 f.
The safety features provided by the existing interlock system cssociaten with the refueling machine for preventing a fuel handling accident (fuel assembly drop) as previously identified in the San Onofre, Units 2 and 3 FSAR are unchanged.
Based on our evaluation, we conclude that the proposed 200 lb. increase in i
the~ minimum capacity of the refueling machine and corresponding increase in the overload cutoff limit meets the fuel handling requirements-of'GDC 61 as it will not affect the safe operation of the refueling machine and thereby will not increase the probability or consequences of a postulated design basis fuel handling accident (fuel assembly drop). Therefore, we find the proposed change to Technical Specification 3/4.9.6, " Refueling Machine" to be acceptable.
3.0 CONTACT WITH STATE OFFICIAL TheNRCstaffhaAadvisedtheChiefoftheRadiologicalHealthBranch, State Department of Health Services, State of California, of the proposed determinations of no significant hazards consideration. No ccreents tfore received.
x b
8
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amendments involve changes in the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area. The staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupation radiation exposure. The commission has previously issued proposed findings that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such findings. Accordingly, the amendments meet the elioibility criteriaforcategoricalexclusionsetforthin10CFRSec.51.22(c}(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environ-mental assessment need to be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
5.0 CONCLUSION
Based upon our evaluation of the proposed changes to the San Onofre Units
? and 3 Technical Specifications, we have concluded that: there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and such activities will be ccnducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public. We, therefore, conclude that the proposed changes are acceptable, and are hereby incorporated into the San Onofre 2 and 3 technical specifications.
Dated: DEC 121986 Principal Contributors:
J. Minns, J. Raval 6
4
-