ML072220365
| ML072220365 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 08/16/2007 |
| From: | Kalyanam N NRC/NRR/ADRO/DORL/LPLIV |
| To: | Rosenblum R Southern California Edison Co |
| Kalyanam N, NRR/DORL/LP4, 415-1480 | |
| References | |
| TAC MD2584, TAC MD2585 | |
| Download: ML072220365 (4) | |
Text
August 16, 2007 Mr. Richard M. Rosenblum Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Southern California Edison Company San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station P.O. Box 128 San Clemente, CA 92674-0128
SUBJECT:
SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3 -
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT ON STEAM GENERATOR TUBE SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM, TUBE REPAIR (TAC NOS. MD2584 AND MD2585)
Dear Mr. Rosenblum:
By letter dated July 14, 2006 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML061990071), as supplemented by later dated June 28, 2007, Southern California Edison submitted an application to change the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, technical specifications (TS) related to steam generator tube integrity TS. The proposed amendment incorporates a description of the parent tube inspection limitation adjacent to the nickel-band portion of the lower sleeve joint and provides the bases for the structural and leakage integrity of the joint being ensured with the existing inspection of the parent tube adjacent to the nickel-band region.
After reviewing your request, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has determined that additional information is needed to complete the review. We discussed the enclosed request for additional information (RAI) with your staff by telephone and they agreed to provide a response to the RAI by the third week of September 2007.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-1480.
Sincerely,
/RA/
N. Kalyanam, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch IV Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/encl: See next page
ML072220365 *No major change from Staff provided RAI OFFICE NRR/LPL4/PM NRR/LPL4/LA NRR/DCI/CSGB*
NRR/LPL4/BC NAME NKalyanam JBurkhardt AHiser THiltz DATE 8/14/07 8/14/07 7/30/07 8/16/07
May 2007 San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3 cc:
Mr. Raymond W. Waldo, Vice President, Nuclear Generation Southern California Edison Company San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station P.O. Box 128 San Clemente, CA 92674-0128 Mr. Douglas K. Porter, Esquire Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, CA 91770 Dr. David Spath, Chief Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management California Dept. of Health Services 850 Marina Parkway, Bldg P, 2nd Floor Richmond, CA 94804 Chairman, Board of Supervisors County of San Diego 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 335 San Diego, CA 92101 Mark L. Parsons Deputy City Attorney City of Riverside 3900 Main Street Riverside, CA 92522 Mr. Gary L. Nolff Assistant Director - Resources City of Riverside 3900 Main Street, 4th Floor Riverside, CA 92522 Regional Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, TX 76011-8064 Mr. Michael J. DeMarco San Diego Gas & Electric Company 8315 Century Park Ct. CP21G San Diego, CA 92123-1548 Director, Radiologic Health Branch State Department of Health Services P.O. Box 997414, MS 7610 Sacramento, CA 95899-7414 Resident Inspector San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 4329 San Clemente, CA 92674 Mayor City of San Clemente 100 Avenida Presidio San Clemente, CA 92672 Mr. James T. Reilly Southern California Edison Company San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station P.O. Box 128 San Clemente, CA 92674-0128 Mr. James D. Boyd, Commissioner California Energy Commission 1516 Ninth Street (MS 31)
Sacramento, CA 95814 Brian Katz Southern California Edison Company San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station P.O. Box 128 San Clemente, CA 92764-0128 Mr. Steve Hsu Department of Health Services Radiologic Health Branch MS 7610, P.O. Box 997414 Sacramento, CA 95899-7414 Mr. A. Edward Scherer Southern California Edison Company San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station P.O. Box 128 San Clemente, CA 92674-0128
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI)
REGARDING SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3 STEAM GENERATOR TUBE SURVEILLANCE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION AMENDMENT DOCKET NOS. 50-361 AND 50-362 The following questions are a continuation to those in our previous RAI letter dated May 17, 2007:
21.
In your June 28, 2007, letter, you indicated (in your response to question 20), that the text in your July 14, 2006, letter (Enclosure 5) was discussing the leakage from two different sources: the tube-to-tubesheet joint and the tube-to-sleeve joint. Please clarify whether this is correct. If so, how was the leakage from the tube-to-sleeve joint distinguished from the leakage from the tube-to-tubesheet joint and which results in Table 6-1 apply to the tube-to-sleeve joint? In addition, please clarify the following:
- a.
The text on page 6-1 of your July 14, 2006, letter (Enclosure 5) indicates that samples 1, 2, 6, and 8 and all 7/8-inch samples essentially did not leak during room temperature testing. Assuming that leakage of 2.7 x 10-6 gallons per minute (gpm) is considered negligible (per your June 28, 2007, letter), please clarify whether sample 5 leaked under room temperature conditions.
- b.
You indicated that the leak rate from the room temperature specimens is bounded by 2.72 x 10-6 gpm. In this case, please clarify the leak rate for specimen 4 (3/4-inch tubing), which is reported in Table 6-1 as having leaked at 5.44 x 10-5 gpm.
- 22.
In your June 28, 2007, letter, you indicated (in your response to question 1), that additional testing was judged not to be necessary to establish the integrity of the sleeve joint over the limited operating period until steam generator replacement. As a result, it appears (to the staff) that you may not have performed certain tests and analyses (e.g.,
load cycling tests) since the sleeves were not expected to be in service for an extended period of time. Given that it appears that you are relying, in part, on the sleeves not being installed for the licensed operating time of the facility, discuss your plans to place a limitation in your technical specifications that all sleeves will be removed from service by a specific date (e.g., December 2009 for Unit 2 and December 2010 for Unit 3) or after a specific period of time (i.e., all tubes with sleeves shall be plugged after the sleeve has been in service for x years). The specific date or time period should be chosen consistent with the results of your assessment. The staff recognizes that no sleeves are currently installed in Unit 3. Alternatively, provide the appropriate test results and analyses (i.e., those tests and analyses performed during initial licensing of the sleeves and affected by a shorter rolled joint) that support continued operation of the sleeves, with a shorter rolled joint length, for the licensed operating time of the facility.