ML13317A645
| ML13317A645 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1981 |
| From: | Moody W SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. |
| To: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| TASK-09-04, TASK-9-4, TASK-RR NUDOCS 8106300436 | |
| Download: ML13317A645 (2) | |
Text
Southern California Edison Company P. 0. BOX 800 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE ROSEMEAD. CALIFORNIA 91770 W.
C. MOODY Jue 25, 1981 TELEPHONES MANAGER, NUCLEAR LICENSING (213) 572-1817 (213) 572-1806 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention:
D. M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 5 Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Subject:
Docket No. 50-206 SEP Topic IX-4, Boron Addition System San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 Your letter of May 13, 1981 forwarded the draft evaluation of SEP Topic IX-4, Boron Addition System. That letter requested that we examine the facts upon which the staff based its evaluation and respond either by confirming that the facts defining San Onofre Unit 1 are correct or by identifying any errors. The results of our review of the facts defining San Onofre Unit 1, as well as additional comments on your assessment, are provided as an enclosure to this letter.
If you have any questions regarding the enclosed, please contact me.
Very truly yours, Enclosure Ao3 8106 80 0
SCE COMMENTS ON SEP TOPIC IX-4 BORON ADDITION SYSTEM
- 1. Although the Introduction is apparently intended to be a general statement regarding this topic, the statements are not applicable to all plants, specifically San Onofre Unit 1. Contrary to the second sentence, San Onofre Unit 1 does not rely on either accumulators or the boron injection tank for borated water during the injection mode. Therefore, this sentence should be revised to be applicable to San Onofre Unit 1 or to clarify that these are possible sources of borated water.
- 2. The second sentence of Section III of the evaluation indicates that SEP Topic VI-7.8 "recommends some automatic features to increase reliability." SCE has not seen an evaluation for this topic and does not know that it recommends automatic features.
- 3. The Conclusion indicates that a "schedule for the implementation of these ECCS single failure modifications will be established during the integrated assessment."
In light of the fact that the modifications referred to in this assessment will be evaluated during the integrated assessment along with other potential modifications resulting from the SEP, it is possible that alternative modifications may be determined to be appropriate during the integrated assessment. It is, therefore, suggested that this sentence be revised to clarify that these modifications will be "considered" during the integrated assessment.
- 4. In addition to the references identified in the topic evaluation, SCE letter dated March 25, 1977 and NRC letter dated April 1, 1977 (Amendment No. 25) are important to this topic and should be referenced in the evaluation.