ML13308B086
| ML13308B086 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 05/03/1989 |
| From: | Bates J HOUSE OF REP. |
| To: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13308B088 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905180348 | |
| Download: ML13308B086 (3) | |
Text
05/04/89 02:48 V
JIM BATES m islmiCT. CALIPOMA PLG EL O
commFTYc ow Meo'V N CANNON WSULOING AND COMMACs WAIdNUION. 0 C. 20515 (am Afitw COMMlwas DN MARKETPLACE AT ?e haUw ovNMeNT
%aAows so 340 Co L11 AVENUE.
0220 SIUntriB f Litt L Utuit thagg
.AN DjO. CA 2115 cOMMITTUt ON NOUSE 16191 2674l1 A
T.ATI..
House of Eepresentatuhes i i An DAVIDSON ST.. CT. SUM A CHULA VISTA. CA MDO0 CHAIRMAN (GSl 901*i4 suscomoMTTEE ONMay 3, 1989 PROCUREMENT AND PPRINN Lando W. Zech, Jr.
Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Chairman Zech:
I am writing to express my concern regarding the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's decision to not delay start-up operations at San Onofre's Unit 1 reactor despite the fact that there are five cracked bolts on a thermal shield inside the reactor.
I understand that your agency will permit operations at San Onofre's Unit 1 reactor if Southern California Edison agrees to conduct an inspection of the heat shield nine months after operations are resumed.
While I am not a nuclear engineer, it seems to me that the heat shield serves an important function and that a prudent decision would be to repair the heat shield prior to restarting the reactor. I would appreciate answers to the following questions:
- 1. What is the function and importance of the heat shield and bolts?
- 2. What is the present condition of the heat shield and bolts?
- 3. Why is it safe to operate Unit 1 given the present condition of the heat shield and bolts?
If you have any questions or require any additional information, please contact my Legislative Director, Jay Hansen, at 225-5452.
I look forward to your prompt reply.
8nere IM BATES JB~jh Member of Congress cc: Mayor Maureen O'Connor San Diego City Council CRC FDF1 CQIVWI NR-PDC I-.CtR C.'3
05/04/89 02:48 M
@003 Southern California Edison Company SUITS 303 M NINSYTCNTH STIREC.
NW.
THOMAS J. QCNNib WASNINSTON, D.C. 3006 Yo"O.wo9 WIGS Pire *agod VW"&"ft6OOb A.4 May 3, 1989 The Honorable Jim Bates U.S. House of Representatives 224 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515
Dear Jim:
Attached please find our response to the San Diego City Council's Resolution of May 2, 1989, concerning the restart of Unit I at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. In addition, I will transmit to you separately a fact sheet providing background information concerning the restart at Unit 1.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please call me or Terry Adihock at 872-1900.
Sincerely, TJDbjs Attachments -3
05/04/89 02-49 I'
Tsl t s a n yOrIY f-W SANDIEGO MAuREs COe M AY 3 190 9 MAVOR May ~
91,159 14t. Howard Allen Clairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer 5VUthernt California Aison Company P.O. Box 800 Raomead, CA 91770 Dear Mr. Allen.
on behalf of the San Dieqo City Council, I would like to advse you or the unanimous resolution passed on May 2, 1989, asking Wouthein California Edison Company and San Diego das & Electric not to resume operation of San Onofro Unit #I until reparations hlave bccn made to the thermal shield.
Further, we have notified our Congressional delogation to ask that they intervene to assure that the safety of our attizens is not jeopardized.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff haw expressed concern that further operation and vibration of tha shield could cause support blucks Lo &lip, could cause the shield to drop to the bottom of the zeactor, affecting the tlow of cooli I ng water around the reactor coare itself.
The citizens of San Diego have expressed concern for their saf*ty there appears to bo more than reasonable doubt with regard to the advisability of running operations of Unit #i. I urge you to put oft that decision.ntil all parties agree.
Maureen O'Connor Mayor MQC/AMMi-esy U*5.1