ML13317A613
| ML13317A613 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 05/11/1981 |
| From: | Baskin K Southern California Edison Co |
| To: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105180157 | |
| Download: ML13317A613 (2) | |
Text
Southern California Edison Company P. 0.
BOX 800 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE ROSEMEAD. CALIFORNIA 91770 K. P. BASKIN May 11, 1981 TELEPHONE MANAGER OF NUCLEAR ENGINEERING, (213) 572-1401 SAFETY, AND LICENSING Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention: D. M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 5 Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 81&b' Washington, D.C.
20555 3
Gentlemen:
Subject:
Seismic Reanalysis Systematic Evaluation Program San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 Your letter of March 15, 1981 informed us that a final decision on the San Onofre.Unit 1 seismic input ground motion has been delayed. The letter also states that we should continue our seismic reevaluation program using the 2/3g Housner ground response spectrum until the final NRC decision is made. No date is given for the NRC's final decision.
The continued delay by the NRC in making a final decision on the appropriate seismic input ground motion for the San Onofre site is of grave concern to us.
As you are aware, we have been pursuing our site specific earthquake program since 1976. This has involved a substantial commitment of resources on the part of the company. A significant effort has been made to respond to the concerns of the NRC staff and their consultants. As a result of all of this work, we continue to believe that the 2/3g Housner response spectrum is a conservative basis for the seismic reevaluation of San Onofre Unit 1.
In addition, as described in our August 4, 1980 letter, we are currently engaged in a significant seismic reevaluation program for San Onofre Unit 1. It is anticipated that this program will cost approximately 2 million dollars over the next year. The basis for reevaluation is the 2/3g Housner response spectrum. Continuing this program on the basis of the NRC staff's interim decision presents a considerable risk to us.
8105180~~
Mr. D.
34ay 11, 1981 Notwithstanding our concern over the continued delays by the NRC Staff in finalizing your position on the adequacy of the 2/3g Housner ground response spectrum, and based on our confidence in the conservatism of that spectrum, we have decided at this time to proceed with our seismic reevaluation program using the 2/3g Housner response spectrum. However, in so doing we expect that the NRC staff will not unnecessarily delay their final decision on that response spectrum.
If you wish to further discuss this matter, please let us know.
Very truly yours,