ML13302A361
| ML13302A361 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 05/23/1980 |
| From: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Dietch R Southern California Edison Co |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006110431 | |
| Download: ML13302A361 (14) | |
Text
MAY 2 31980Distribution MAY 980Docket os SHanauer NRC.PDR JKni ght Local PDR RPDenise LB #3 File VAMoore DEisenhution RPurple MLErbst Docket No 05-361 RTedesco ELD ASchwencer IE(3)
HRood bcc: NSIC JLee TIC RJMattson ACRS(16)
Mr. Robert Dietch Mr. B. W. Gilman Vice President Senior Vice President - Operations Southern California Edison Company San Diego Gas and Electric Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue 101 Ash Street P.0. Box 800P.
- 0. Box 1831 Rosemead, California 91770 San Diego, California 92112 Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATING To THE STAFF REVIEW OF THE SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1, 24,AND 3 As a result of our review of the Final Safety Analysis Report for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, we find that we need the additional Information listed in Enclosure 1. The response to all the enclosed questions should be included on the Unit 2 and 3 docket. In addition, we request that the response to Question 361.65 be included on the San Onofre Unit I docket.
In addition to the enclosed questions, we would like to advise you of an addi tional open item in our review. Specifically, our approval of the analysis methods used for determining fuel assembly loads at San Onofre 2 and 3 depends on our approval of CENPD-178. Our review of this topical report has been sus pended pending submittal of additional information by Combustion Engineering, Inc. No date has been established for this submittal.
Please contact us if you have any questions about the information requested.
Sincerely, OrIginal Signed b' A. Schwencer, Acting Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing Enclosures, Request for Additional Information ccs w/enclosures; 800611 O~
1 '
See next page O'FFmCEm.DL-LB-#3-....
DL:LB-43..............
&LPRINAME0.. HRoOd ab..
AShwencerhfid DATE 5..
.18.0.
W...
5......................................
NRC FORM 318 (9-76) NRCM 0240 U.S: GOVERNMENTm PRINTINGOFFICE: 1979-289369
MAY 2 3 1980 Distribution Docket File SHanauer NRC POR JKnight Local PDR RPDenise LB #3 File VAMoore DEisenhut WKreger RPurple MLErnst Docket 'Nos. 50-206, 50-361 RTedesco ELD and 50-362 ASchwencer IE(3)
HRood bcc:
NSIC JLee TIC RJMattson ACRS(16)
Mr. Robert Dietch Mr. B. W. Gilman Vice President Senior Vice President - Operations Southern California Edison Company San Diego Gas and Electric Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue 101 Ash Street P. 0. Box 300 P. 0. Box 1831 Rosemead, California 91770 San Diego, California 92112 Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATING TO THE STAFF REVIEW OF THE SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 As a result of our review of the Final Safety Analysis Report for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, we find that we need the additional information listed in Enclosure 1. The response to all the enclosed questions should be included on the Unit 2 and 3 docket.
In addition, we request that the response to Question 361.65 be included on the San Onofre Unit I docket.
In addition to the enclosed questions, we would like to advise you of an addi tional open item in our review.
Specifically, our approval of the analysis methods used for determining fuel assembly loads at San Onofre 2 and 3 depends on our approval of CENPD-178.
Our review of this topical report has beer sus pended pending submittal of additional information by Combustion Engineering, Inc.
No date has been established for this submittal.
Please contact us if you have any questions about-the information requested.
Sincerely, Original Signed by A. ScIwencer, Acting Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
Request for Additional Information ccs w/enclosures See next page 40 0 FC..........I1
./
o~c~4.DL:LB #3.ID~B~3D~rf1 SURNAME.. HRod:b I1 Achwencer.
DATE0....
O DC....
.hfield
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 MAY 2 3 1980 Docket Nos. 50-206, 50-361 and 50-362 Mr. Robert Dietch Mr. B. W. Gilman Vice President Senior Vice President - Operations Southern California Edison Company San Diego Gas and Electric Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue 101 Ash Street P. 0. Box 800 P. 0. Box 1831 Rosemead, California 91770 San Diego, California 92112 Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATING TO THE STAFF REVIEW OF THE SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 As a result of our review of the Final Safety Analysis Report for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, we find that we need the additional information listed in Enclosure 1. The response to all the enclosed questions should be included on the Unit 2 and 3 docket. In addition, we request that the response to Question 361.65 be included on the San Onofre Unit 1 docket.
In addition to the enclosed questions, we would like to advise you of an addi tional open item in our review. Specifically, our approval of the analysis methods used for determining fuel assembly loads at San Onofre 2 and 3 depends on our approval of CENPD-178. Our review of this topical report has been sus pended pending submittal of additional information by Combustion Engineering, Inc.
No date has been established for this submittal.
Please contact us if you have any questions about the information requested.
Sincerely, A. Schwencer, Acting Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
Request for Additional Information ccs w/enclosures:
See next page
aS
.ocher, s Sis
- reCtnor, I
tF
=-eral Counsel vi sion Sou:en CaIifornia Edison Company ffice of Radiation Prcrarns 7-fice Sox 8200 459)
SCalifor;ia 91770 S
nvironmtal Ac e ncy d R. Picott Crysta IalI 2 SSaf el B. Casey Arlington, Virginia 20450 C erinc & Gregory Tnr-e Embarcadero Center U. S. Environmental ProtEction twe7ov-Third Floor Agency S=7 :rancisco, California 94111 Region X Office AT T :
EIS COORDINATOR Jack E. Thomas 215 Freemont Street Harrv 3. Stoehr San Francisco, California 94111 S n Diego Gas & Electric Company
. Box 1831 S
Diretoriecc, California 92112 es i
I nsoector U
Sn.
NRPC 3.2 ox AA AritnVrii4California 92054 eejo Branch Library 215 rrematttDrrive Sin Viejo, California 925 7 es San Clemente ScE s
- ntside, California 92672 a zr
-~of Supervisors 2
CO San Dieco i eo, California 92101
-L of S epatment of ealth
-hne, Envronmenal Radiation Control Unit
- .cical Health Section Street, Room 498 a-a-e-n-n California 95814
cc:
Charles R. Kocher, Esq.
Jame A. Beoletto, Esq.
Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue P. 0. Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770 Chickering & Gregory ATTN:
David R. Pigott, Esq.
Counsel for San Diego Gas & Electric Company &
Southern California Edison Company 3 Embarcadero Center - 23rd Floor San Francisco, California 94112 Mr. Kenneth E. Carr City Manager City of San Clemente 100 Avenido Presidio San Clemente, California 92672 Alan R. Watts, Esq.
Rourke & Woodruff Suite 1020 1055 North Main Street Santa Ana, California 92701 Lawrence Q. Garcia, Esq.
California Public Utilities Commission 5066 State Building San Francisco, California 94102 Mr. R. W.. DeVane, Jr.
Combustion Engineering, Incorporated 1000 Prospect Hill Road Windsor, Connecticut 06095
Pr oiert Kietch
-2 Mr. E. W. Gilman cc:
Mr. P. Dranolovich Bechtel Power Corporation P. 0. Box 60860, Terminal Annex Los Angeles, California 90060 Mr. Mark Medford Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue P. 0. Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770 Henry Peters San Diego Gas & Electric Company P. 0. Box 1831 San Diego, California 92112 Ms.
Lyn Harris Hicks Advocate for GUARD 3908 Calle Ariana San Clemente, California 92672 Richard J. Wharton, Esq.
Wharton & Pogalies Suite 106 2667 Camino Del Rib South San Diego, California 92108 Phyllis M. Gallagher, Esq.
Suite 222 1695 West Crescent Avenue Anaheim, California 92701 Mr. A. S. Carstens 2071 Caminito Circulo Norte Mt.
La Jolla, California 92037 Resident Inspector, San Onofre/NPS c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. 0. Box AA Oceanside., California 92054
ENCLOSJRE 1 0,10-1 040.0 POWER SYSTEMS BRANCH 040.68 The following questions have been prepared based on review of environ mental equipment qualification plans provided by the application idvntified as Bechtel Power Corporation Equipment Design Specification No.
S023-304-11 (including addendum 1, 2, & 3) and The Fr:'nklin Institute Rosoarch Laboratories Qualification Test Reports F-C3913-LA, F-C3913-2A & F-C3913-3A:
1.(a)
Identify the qualified life of the power cables and justify your conclusions since your test results show cables thermally aged and radiation aged had substantial deterioration of the jackets which in one case was repaired before the steam/chemical spray and again during the high potential test.
(Ref.
Cable B10).
(b) Cable B10 did not maintain electrical load throughout the steam/chemical spray exposure (LOCA).
(c)
If the qualified life is less than 40 years, identify the method of documenting and reporting the plan for cable replacement aftor the qualified life.
- 2.
Provide complete model and/or identification nunber(s) for the tested cables being qualified.
- 3.
Provide data indicating that the LOCA qualification conditions equals or exceeds the maximum calculated MSLS conditions.
- 4.
Identify the acceptance criteria for these power cables.
060-2 040.69 The following questions have been prepared based on review of environmental and seismic equipment qualification plans provided by the application identified:
Bechtel Power Corporation Purchase Specification No. S023-301-3.
- 1. Ref. Response to NRC Question 040.50 dated 5/78, amendment 9, Table 040.50-1 and FSAR 3.11-2.
(a).
Provide your equipment qualification plan as outlined in Section 5.3 of IEEE 323-1971.
(b).
The use of previous operating experience and history can be acceptable (per IEEE 323-1971) for environmental qualification, however, the information must be complete especially with regard to service conditions and equip ment performance and presented in an auditable form.
- 2. Identify the qualified life of the 480 V-Load Center.
- 3. Provide your acceptance criteria.
- 4.
Provide test results when obtained.
G.
)-3.
040.70 The following questions have been prepared basod on review of environmental and seismic equipment qualification plans provided by the application identified:
Bechtel Power Corporation Purchase Specification No. S023-302-4 and Square D Company Report No. 43220-1:
- 1.
Ref. Response to NRC Question 040.50 dated 5/78, ammendment 9, Table 040.50-1 and FSAR 3.11-2.
(a).
Provide your equipment qualification plan as outlined in Section 5.3 of IEEE 323-1971.
(b). 'The use of previous operating experience and history can be acceptable (per IEEE 323-1971) for environmental qualification, however, the information must be complete especially with regard to service conditions and equipment performance and presented in an auditable form.
- 2.
Identify the qualified life of the 480 V-AC Motor Control Centers.
- 3.
Provide your acceptance criteria.
- 4.
Provide test results when obtained.
A0 221.0 CORE PERFORMANCE BRANCH, THE tAL-HYDRALLICS SECTION 921.20 Your response in Amendment 17 to question 221.18, item (3),
is not clear. This part of the question requested that you provide the data base constants and changes to the CPC algorithms.
Your response stated that "Generation of detailed software design documentation and test documentation is included as part of the structured QA design documentation described in response to NRC position 16.on ANO-2. These types of design documents will be used in the design process on San Onofre 2 and 3 and include CPC and CEAC Functional Design Specifications and a Data Base Document."
We see no commitment to supply this documentation to the NRC in your response. We require that you submit the CPC and CEAC Functional Design Specifications and Data Base Document for our review. The San Onofre CPC design will not be approved Prior.
to NRC review of these documents.
331-1 331.0 RADIOLOGICAL ASSESSME!'T 3RAICH 331.19 I't is our position that all accessible portions of one s-ent
'Figure 12.3-4, fuel transfer tube be shielded during fuel transfer.
Use of removable shieldinq for this purpose is acceptable. This shielding shall be such that the resultant contact radiation levels shall be no greater than 100 rads per hour. All accessible portions of the spent fuel transfer tube shall be clearly marked with a sign stating that potentially lethal radiation fields are possible during fuel transfer. If removable shielding is used for the fuel transfer tubes, it must also be explicitly marked as above. If other than permanent shielding is used, local audible and visible alarming radiation monitors must be installed to.alert personnel if temporary fuel tranfer tube shieldinq is removed during. fuel transfer operations. Please provide a description of your modified design to comply with these positions.
36 1-1 361.0 GEOSCIENCES BRANCH 361.64 In our Question 361.55 we pointed out that a larue a"7unt of strona.
ion data very near to the fault have been aa d as a r.Su lt of thn ria1 Va11oy earthquake of 15 October 1,7 979.
inf1 that u
as sess the i wpact of the new data on your ost Vat s of t 2he-1k round mot ion and on the dos ign response spec tra at he sCNrS site.
Your response to this question only cons idered the hor 1 zonta1 cc 2onents of the strong motion data for the Imperial Valley carthqao5e.
It id not address the vertical peak accelcrations or the vertical respso spectra.
In view of the fact that the vert ical pdak accolu:ritions at so:-e of the recording stations cxcee-ded the hori'ontal values, it is requosted that you provide the inFor;;ation for the vertical peak
-cmorration and the vortical response spictra. in a format similar to that..hich y'u cscd for "he h
.enta data. Please discuss the inact of this data on the Kesign rcsponse s-2ctra at the TOYGS site.
361-2 361.65 The estimation of free field earth.;uake grord ntion to be uscd in the reevaluation of SONGS 1 is based upon deterministic rdelling of such motion from an earthquake occurring on the Offshore Zone of Deformation 8 km west of the plant. The estimation of free field earthquake ground motion from the same zone presented in the SONGS 2 & 3 Operating License review is based upon a largely empirical evaluation.
Since all three of these units are at the same location and are subject to the same se'smic hazard a comparative evaluation of.results from both methodologies is warranted.
You are requested to prepare this evaluation includirng sufficient discussion and figures so that the staff may fully understand the "similarities" and differences in the results. Specific attention should be paid to include the following items.
- 1. Comparative plots of predicted spectra at similar lcvcls of da :pin.'.
- 2. A comparison of the similarities and diffcrences of these spectra at different frequency bands and a discussion of the sources of these differences and their significance with respect to uncertainties in the prediction of ground motion and validity of the different approaches Laken.
- 3. A discussion and listing of the conservatisms existing in each approach and what effect these have upon the relative differences and similarities in the resultant spectra.
- 4.
A discussion of the rationale as to why different approaches were used at SONGS 1 and SONGS 2 and 3.
- 5.
A comparison of the basic geological and seismological assumptions utilized in each approach.
423-1 423.0 INITIAL TEST PROGRAM 423.31 It has come to our attention that some applicants do not intend to conduct confirmatory tests of some distribution systems and transformers supplying power to vital buses as required by Position 3 of. Regulatory Guide 1.68, and more specifically by Part 4 of the staff position on degraded grid voltage (applied to all plants in licensing review by the Power Systems Branch since.1976).
Part 4 of the degraded grid voltage position states as follows:
"4. The voltage levels at the safety-related buses should be optimized for the ful.l load and minimum load conditions that are expected throughout the anticipated range of voltage variations of the offsite power source by appropriate adjustment of the voltage tap settings of the intervening transformers.
We require that the adequacy of the design in this regard be verified by actual measurement and by correlation of measured values with analysis results.
Provide a description of the method for making this verification; before initial reactor power operation, provide the documentation required to establish that this verification has been accomplished."
Your test description in FSAR Chapter 14 does not contain sufficient detail for us to determine if you intend to conduct such a test.
It is our position that confirmatory tests of all vital buses must be conducted including all sources of power supplies to the buses.
Modify your test description to indicate that this testing will be conducted in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.68 and the above cited position.