ML13317A710
| ML13317A710 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 10/23/1981 |
| From: | Moody W Southern California Edison Co |
| To: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| TASK-03-03.C, TASK-3-3.C, TASK-RR NUDOCS 8110270247 | |
| Download: ML13317A710 (3) | |
Text
Southern California Edison Company P. 0. BOX 800 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770 W. C. MOODY TELEPHONES MANAGER, NUCLEAR LICENSING October 2 1
(213) 572-1817 Oc o er 2
1 (213)572-1806 Director, Office 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 Gentlemen:
Subject:
Docket No. 50-206 SEP Topic III-3.C San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 Your letter of July 27, 1981 forwarded the draft evaluation of SEP Topic III-3.C, Inservice Inspection of Water Control Structures.
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 questions regarding the enclosed, please contact me.
Very truly yours, Enclosure 8110270247 811023 PDR ADOCK 05000206 t
G
!PDR)
SCE Comments on Draft Evaluation for SEP Topic III-3.C San Onofre Unit 1
- 1.Section III, page 2, references SEP Topic III-3.B, Structural and Other Consequences of Failure of Underdrain Systems, as a related topic.
Since San Onofre Unit 1 does not have an underdrain system, this topic has been deleted. Therefore, reference should not be included in the Topic III-3.C evaluation.
- 2.
On page 3, paragraph 2, the height of the Unit 1 seawall should be corrected from +30 feet to "+28 feet".
- 3.
On page 3, paragraph 2, the elevation of the reservior should be corrected from elevation +78 feet to "approximate elevation +96 feet".
The reservoir is 18 feet deep, which puts the bottom of the reservoir at approximately +78 feet.
- 4.
It would appear that the detailed information in Section 2 on pages 4 and 5 of the evaluation, is not appropriate for this topic evaluation. This information more appropriately belongs in the evaluations for SEP Topics II-4.D, Stability of Slopes, and II-4.F, Settlement of Foundations and Buried Equipment.
- 5.
On page 4, paragraph 1, the San Mateo Sand compressional wave velocity should be revised to "3000-7500 feet per second" based on section 2.5.4.2.1.3 of the San Onofre Units 2 and 3 FSAR.
- 6.
On page 5, paragraph 2, the original plant site elevation should be revised to "60 to 90 feet MLLW".
- 7.
On page 5, paragraph 2 the shear modulus and elastic modulus should be revised to 14,700 k/ft and 40,000 k/ft 2, respectively, based on section 2.5.4.10.4 of the San Onofre Units 2 and 3 FSAR.
- 8.
On page 5, paragraph 2, the measured settlement at San Onofre Unit 1 should be revised to 0.38 inches based on Section 2.5.4.10.4 of the San Onofre Units 2 and 3 FSAR.
- 9.
Figure 1 should be corrected to show the two 48" CMP's dumping into the screenwell and not the intake and discharge conduits.
- 10.
Item 4 on page 7 should be revised to read "The seawall, tsunami gates and beach walkway which is currently under construction".
- 11.
On page 8, first paragraph and page 14, first paragraph, correct "Engineering Document Management (EDM) center" to the new title "Corporate Document Management (CDM) center".
- 12. Page 9, first paragraph, states "provision has been made for accomplishment of special inspections immediately after the occurrence of unique events such as earthquake, tsunami, intense local rainfall or other unusual event". A similar statement is made on page 14, item 3.
Procedures exist for inspection following an earthquake. However, procedures do not exist for inspections following the other events.
- 13. On page 10, paragraph 2, the first sentence should be revised in part to read "... due to construction of Units 2 and 3 and Unit 1 backfit work have already resulted in..."
- 14. On page 11, first paragraph, and page 13, fourth paragraph, it is recommended that an SCE Division Order be written for inspection of water control structures. Preparation of a Division Order to do this is not appropriate. These provisions more appropriately belong in a San Onofre Unit 1 Station Procedure.