ML13317B073

Forwards Comments on San Onofre Unit 1 Loss of Salt Water Cooling Event of 800310, Per 820403 Request

ML13317B073
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	04/07/1982
From:	Baskin K Southern California Edison Co
To:	Crutchfield D, Michelson C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC/OGC
Shared Package
ML13310A233	List: ML13310A232 ML13317B073 ML13317B074
References
TAC-65149 NUDOCS 8204090261
Download: ML13317B073 (3)

Text

-

Southern California Edison Company P. 0. BOX 800 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE ROSEMEAD. CALIFORNIA 91770 K. P. BASKIN TELEPHONE MANAGER OF NUCLEAR ENGINEERING, April 7, 1982 (213) 572-1401 SAFETY, AND LICENSING 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 Mr. Carlyle Michelson, Director Office for Analysis and Evaluation R[82ULAT0RY of Operational Data U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Gentlemen:

Subject:

Docket No. 50-206 Case Study Report Loss of Salt Water Cooling Event of March 10, 1980 San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 By letter dated March 4, 1982 the preliminary report entitled, "San Onofre Unit 1 Loss of Salt Water Cooling Event of March 10', 1980",

was provided for review and comment.

Accordingly, our comments are provided as the enclosure to this letter.

If you have any questions or desire additional information, please contact me.

Very truly yours,

• o ROrnelas:sm A

Enclosure cc:

H. L. Ornstein (NRC-Washington D. C.)

8204090261 820407 PDR ADOCK 05000206 PDR

ENCLOSUTIE CattENI'S ON AEOD REPO ON LOSS OF SALT WATER CDOLING MARCH 10, 1980

1.

Page 5, paragraph 3 The modificaticns which are being performed to improve the reliability of the auxiliary salt water cooling pimp and all future modifications or repairs, will be made in accordance with our procedures for work on safety related corponents and in accordance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.

2.

Page 7, paragraph 2 Plant change notice should be procedure change notice.

3.

Page 7, paragraph 3 This equipnent is not suspected of having been affected by the event but is considered totally unrelated.

Records indicate this was a gradual development occuring over a period of time.

It is mere coin cidence that maintenance was required at this time.

4.

Page 15, paragraph 2 Delete last sentence.

LER 80-03 documtented the failure of a containment isolation valve to close.

Initial corrective action was taken at that time.

5.

Page 18, paragraph 4 Thrust bearing vibration is measured, not shaft bearing vibration.

6.

Page 18, paragraph 4 The SWr pump prim-ing syste. mcdifications have not been completed but are under way.

7.

Page 19, section 4.2 Notice that IST punp testing is now in comliance with Section XI.

8.

Apperdix B, pages IB, 2B Note that both pumps were in the required action range as result of flow and Delta P, not vibration.

Both measurements had been discounted due to problem in accuracy of the measurements; therefore, no mainten ance was required to correct this condition.

It should also be pointed out that correction of a flow problen will not necessarily result in correction of a vibration Problem.

9.

Appendix D, page 4D No POV 5 or 6 deficiencies were previously observed to have been caused by desiccant.

March 15, 1982 thA 1 198 MR. K. P. BASKIN

SUBJECT:

G-asesStudy-Reporton-San-Onofre-Un-it

& Loss of Sadlt Water-.Cool-ing -Event. of March

.1Q, 1980 The subject report was sent to Mr. H. B. Ray by letter dated March 4, 1982 requesting review and comment within 30 days from receipt, which was March 9, 1982.

The report is being reviewed by Station Engineering under the direction of Mr. Katz.

~Widl youmplease-initiatea.review by yogur e~nsing Groupwiwnwcoordination awithathe Station nd'prepare an-appropr-iate If you have any questions or comments, please let me know.

J. G. H NES JGH:bam cc:

H. B. Ray B. Katz R. W. Krieger