ML20247R736
| ML20247R736 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 05/15/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247R640 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-83-20, NUDOCS 8906070299 | |
| Download: ML20247R736 (4) | |
Text
f
' ko
(.~*
ug'*g UNITED STATES E
g.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.h j
' WASHINGTON, D, C. 20555 q \\..../
I l
t SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF' NUCLEAR REACTOR-REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.72 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-10 AND AMENDMENT NO.60 T0 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-15 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3 DOCKET N05. 50-361 AND 50-362
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Dy letter dated August 26, 1986, Southern California Edison Company (SCE),
.et. al. (the licensees) subraitted a reauest to ameno the licenses of the San Oncfre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), Units 2 and 3, to include their Integrated Implementation Schedule for plant capital modifications as a new license condition. The NRC staff review of this proposal resulted in requests for certain revisions, which the licensees provided in letters of November 21, 1986 and February 1, 1988.
Further staff review identified ecditional typographical corrections and language clarification which were discussed with SCE and with which they agreed. The rautuall Integrated Implementation Scheoule Program Plan (The Plan) y agreed uponis provid an attachment to the licenses, effective with these amenduents.
2.0 CbCRIPTION The proposed license condition will establish the methodology to be used to determine the schedule for implementation of NRC-requitad plant capital mootfications for SONGS Units 2 and 3.
The proposed lic.snse condition and The Plan are consistent with the recommendations of Generic letter 83-20
" Integrated Living Schedule for Implementation of Plant Modifications,"
which was issued by the NRC staff on May 9, 1983.
8906070299 890515 DR ADOCK 0500 361 1
---_- _ _ A
t
.(.
i i Projects are ranked according to their relative potential to enhance safe plant operation. Ranking of projects is performed by two different methodologies. NRC and other regulatory-related modifications are ranked by the Westinghouse Analytical Ranking Process as applied to SONGS Units 2 and 3; the SCE-initiated plant betterment items are ranked by the San Onofre Plant Modification Review Committee. The Westinghouse method was previously evaluated by the NRC and was found to be acceptable by). letter dated November 16, 1983 fromD.Eisenhut(NRC)toK.Baskin(SCE The San Onofre Plant Modification Review Committee consists of representatives from many areas of plant operations and management who determine priority and schedules for betterment projects. Thus, special consideration is given to the particular attributes of a project that may make it impera-tive to implement on an expedited schedule.
Once ranked, the projects are scheduled assuming a normal refueling outage duration. The scheduling also considers lead times, site manpower, engineering support and other resources. Because many of the modifica-tions can only be completed during plant shutdown, completion schedules are usually cycle (or outage) dependent instead of keyed to a fixed calendar date.
The program is structured so that future plant modifications that might be identified can be integrated into the overall program to determine the impact of new requirements on the overall schedule. The plan submitted by the licensees identifies three categories of modifications. Schedule A identifies schedules for modifications established by existing rule, license condition, or order. Schedule B identifies schedules for com-pletion of regulatory items (of either a generic or plant specific nature) identified by NRC or other regulatory agencies and those items perceived by SCE as being prospective NRC requirements, all of which would result in plant modifications. Schedule B also includes major technical evaluation projects to identify any required modifications to satisfy NRC requests.
Schedule C consists of SCE-initiated plant betterment projects.
3.0 EVALUATION The licensees' August 28, 1986 submittal, as revised on November 21, 1986 and February 1,1988, provides an application for amendments to incor-porate a license condition requiring that SCE follow the plan, but permits the licensees to make changes to the plan and its schedules for certain categories of items in accordance with the provisions of the plan. The staff has reviewed the licensees' plan and has made the following deter-minations:
(a) Changes to schedules for completion of modifications imposed by rule, license condition, or order (Schedule A completion dates) will continue to be sought through the exemption, license amendment, or order-date extension process.
f = =, +
(b) Schedules for completion of other regulatory-related accifications (Schedule B) are identified and provisions are trade in the plan to require SCE to provide the NRC with prior written notification of changes to Schedule B completion dates.
(c) Provisions are made in the plan for incorporating new or anticipated regulatory items into either Schedule A or B as these requirements
'{
are identified by NRC and/or formelized by rule, license condition, o
or order.
(d) Schedules for completion of SCE-inititated projects (Schedule C)'may be changed at the discretion of SCE.
Semi-annual status reports of utility progress toward implementation of' NRC-identified modifications are required by the plan.
The incorporation of a condition into the San Onofre Units 2 and 3 uperating licenses which requires SCE to follow the Plan provides an appropriate mechanism to assure that NRC is informed as to whether required safety modifications are performed in a timely manner. At the same time, the plan provides a suitable mechanism for changes to completion dates
.(due to unforeseen circumstances) for modifications not imposr.d by rule, license condition or order, and for keeping the NRC informed of such changes. Thus, the Plan provides the degree of flexibility needed to allow effective program implementation as well as assurance that NRC's responsibilities are not compromised.
The Plan and the associated license condition are similar to those approved by the staff in Amendment No. 98 (dated April 20,1987) to Provisional l
Operating License No. DPR-13 for San Onofre Unit 1.
3.0
SUMMARY
The proposed change establishes an administrative means for tracking and scheduling NRC requireo plant modifications and licensee commitments.- It I
does not affect the plant configuration or NRC-mandated schedules for implementation of modifications. Because the proposed license condition does not affect the plant configuration, no accident analyses are affected; therefore, the proposed change is administrative in nature and is, therefore, acceptable.
l l
L
1 l
]
' 4.0 CONTACT WITH STATE OFFICIAL The NRC staff has advised the Chief of the Radiological Health Branch, State Department of Health Services, State of California, of the proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration. No coments were received.
i
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments involve changes in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part
- 20. The staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or ' cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the anend-ments invcive no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuantto10CFR51.22(b)noenvironmentalimpactstate-ment or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
6.0 CONCLUSION
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
D. E. Hickman Dated: May 15, 1989