ML13330A448
| ML13330A448 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 10/19/1984 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Baskin K SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| LSO5-84-10-022, LSO5-84-10-22, NUDOCS 8410310265 | |
| Download: ML13330A448 (8) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 October 19, 1984 Docket No.:
50-206 LSO5 10-022 Mr. Kenneth P. Baskin, Vice President Nuclear Engineering Licensing and Safety Department Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770
Dear Mr. Baskin:
SUBJECT:
REQUIRED ACTIONS FOR RESTART -
SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNIT 1 By letter dated August 30, 1984, you requested NRC approval for restart of San Onofre Unit 1. The staff has previously evaluated the associated "return to service plan," submitted on December 23, 1983, as described in the Safety Evaluation Report dated February 8, 1984. Based on subsequent meetings, site visits, inspections, and analysis audits, the staff is preparing a safety evaluation report which will address the seismic capability of San Onofre Unit 1 relative to plant restart. However, as we have discussed, the following additional information and findings are necessary for the staff to complete its.evaluation:
- 1. Certification under oath and affirmation that the return to service plan is complete, including all required modifications, and is consistent with the December 23, 1983 program description, as modified by NRC comments.
- 2. Determination that the seismically-induced failure of systems and components for which seismic reanalysis and upgrading have not been completed would not prevent structures, systems and components required to safely achieve a hot standby condition from performing their intended function.
- 3. Confirmation that the as-built configuration of the masonry walls is consistent with the conditions assumed in their seismic capability analyses and tests.
This issue was discussed during the site meeting on masonry walls in September 1984.
834103102650 841 PDR ADOCK 0 0206 P.
Mr. K. Baskin
- 2
- 4. Confirmation that all analyses for the return to service plan have complete quality control certification. In particular, verification that the analysis for support SI-01-5011-HOO8 has properly considered all loads on the beam. This question was raised during the staff's audit review of analysis calculations.
- 5. Presentation of a deterministic basis for concluding that the "return to service" scope is adequate to ensure public safety for plant-restart.
Your presentation should also address the time period for which hot standby can be maintained and possible contingency measures that are being considered for longer-term cooling should it be required.
This information, along with the information previously developed during the course of the review, will form the basis by which the staff will judge whether adequate seismic capability has been demonstrated for San Onofre Unit 1 to permit plant restart. In addition, exemption requests pursuant to Section 50.12 of the Commission's regulations, and requests for license amendments will also be needed for any design or operational aspects of the plant which are not in conformance with applicable NRC regulations or the operating license.
As you know, there are other issues such as the evaluation of the diesel generators, environmental qualification and intake structure repairs, as well as any issues raised during routine and preoperational testing inspections, which will have to be acceptably addressed before the NRC will consider an authorization for restart.
This information request affects fewer than ten respondents and, therefore, an OMB clearance is not required in accordance with Public Law 96-511.
Sincerely, Dennis M rutcle d,,ssistant Director for Safety Assessment Division of Licensing
Mr. K. Baskin
-2
- 4. Confirmation that all analyses for the return to service plan have complete quality control certification. In particular, verification that the analysis for support SI-01-5011-HOO8 has properly considered all loads on the beam. This question was raised during the staff's audit review of analysis calculations.
- 5. Presentation of a deterministic basis for concluding that the "return to service" scope is adequate to ensure public safety for plant restart.
Your presentation should also address the time period for which hot standby can be maintained and possible contingency measures that are being considered for longer-term cooling should it be required.
This information, along with the information previously developed during the course of the review, will form the basis by which the staff will judge whether adequate seismic capability has been demonstrated for San Onofre Unit 1 to permit plant restart. In addition, exemption requests pursuant to Section 50.12 of the Commission's regulations, and requests for license amendments will also be needed for any design or operational aspects of the plant which are not in conformance with applicable NRC regulations or the operating license.
As you know, there are other issues such as the evaluation of the diesel generators, environmental qualification and intake structure repairs, as well as any issues raised during routine and preoperational testing inspections, which will have to be acceptably addressed before the NRC will consider an authorization for restart.
This information request affects fewer than ten respondents and, therefore, an OMB clearance is not required in accordance with Public Law 96-511.
Sincerely, Original signed by/
Dennis M. Crutchfield, Assistant Director for Safety Assessment Division of Licensing DISTRIBUTION Document Control (50-206)
OELD CIGrimes/EMcKenna DMCrutchfield WPaulson DEisenhut/FMiraglia EGCase/HRDenton
- PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES OBTAINED DL:DL:SEPL:SEPB DL:ORB5 D
- McKenna:1b
- CIGrimes
- WPaulson
- DCrutchfield DEi nhut 10/05/84 10/05/84 10/09/84 10/11/84 10 84
Mr. Kenneth P. Baskin cc Charles R. Kocher, Assistant General Counsel James Beoletto, Esquire Southern California Edison Company Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770 David R. Pigott Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 600 Montogmery Street San Francisco, California 94111 Dr. Lou Bernath San Diego Gas & Electric Company P. 0. Box 1831 San Diego, California 92112 Resident Inspector/San Onofre NPS c/o U.S. NRC P. 0. Box 4329 San Clemente, California 92672 Mayor City of San Clemente San Clemente, California 92672 Chairman Board of Supervisors County of San Diego San Diego, California 92101
- Director Energy Facilities Siting Division Energy Resources Conservation &
Development Commission 1516 - 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX Office ATTN:
Regional Radiation Representative 215 Freemont Street San Francisco, California 94105 John B. Martin, Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region V 1450 Maria Lane Walnut-Creek, California 94596
Mr. K. Baskin
- 2
- 4. Confirmation that all analyses for the return to service plan have complete qual'ty control certification.
In particular, verification that the analy is for support SI-01-5011-HOO8 has properly considered all loads on the be m. This question was raised during the staff's audi review of analysi calculations.
- 5. Presentati n of a deterministic basis for concluding at the "return to service" sc e is adequate to ensure public safety fr plant restart.
Your present tion should also address the time pey od for which hot standby can be mainta ed and possible contingency measVfes that are being considered for onger-term cooling should it required.
This information, alon with the information preiously developed during the course of the review, wi form the basis by which the staff will judge whether adequate seismic c ability has beendemonstrated for San Onofre Unit 1 to permit plant restart.
n addition, emption requests, pursuant to Section 50.12 of the Commissi n's regul/alons, will also be needed for any design or operational aspects the p)nt which are not in conformance with the applicable NRC regulations.
As you know, there are other issue such as the evaluation of the diesel generators, environmental qualifAea ion and intake structure repairs, as well as any issues raised during routine ad preoperational testing inspections, which will have to be accept, ly reso ed before the NRC will consider an authorization for restart.
This information reques affects fewer th ten respondents and, therefore, an OMB clearance is not r uired in accordanc with Public Law 96-511.
Sincerely, Darrell G. Eis nhut, Director Division of Lic nsing DISTRIBUTION Document Control (50-206)
OELD CIGrimes/EMcKenna DMCrutchfield WPaulson DEisenhut/FMiraglia EGCase/HRDenton
- PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES OBTAINED DL:SEPB DL:SEPB DL:0RBS DL V
DL NRR /N
- McKenna:lb *CIGrimes
/ /84
/ 4
/ /84
Mr. K. Baskin
-2
- 4. Confirmation that all analyses for the return to service plan have complete quality control certification. In particular, verification that the analysis for support SI-01-5011-HOO8 has properly considered all loads on the beam. This question was raised during the staff's audit review of analysis calculations.
- 5. Presentation of a completely deterministic basis for concluding that the "return to se vice" scope is adequate to ensure public safety for plant restart. Your presentation should also address the time period for which hot standby can be maintained and pos'ible contingency measures that are being considered for longer-term cooling should it be required.
This information, along with the infoy'ation gathered during the course of the review, will form the ba is by whichthe staff will judge whether adequate seismic capability has be n demonst ated for San Onofre Unit 1 to permit plant restart. As you kno,we ao expect the evaluation of the diesel enerators and issues raise durg routine and preoperational testing inspections e.g., intake structure repais will have to be acceptably resolved before the NRC will consider an aut ization for restart.
This information request af ec s fewer than ten respondents and, therefore, an OMB clearance is not requi ed i accordance with Public Law 96-511.
Sincerely, Har Id R. Denton, Director Offi e of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION Document Control (50-
)
NRC PDR LPDR PRC System CIGrimes/EMcKenna DMCrutchfield WPaulson DEisenhut/FMiraglia EGCase/HRDenton DT" U -
DL:SEPBclD dC5 DL:AD:SA DL NRR NRR McKenna:lb CIGrimes WPaulson DCrutchfield DEisenhut EGCase HRDenton 10/05/84 10/G/84 JO/q /84
/ /84
/
/84
/ /84
/ /84
DOCUMENT NAME:
LTR TO K.BASKIN REQUESTOR'S ID:
LEE S
AUTHOR'S NAME:
CIGRIMES 0
DocUMENT COMMENTS:
SAN ONOFRE REQUIRED ACTI NS FOR RESTART O DOCMET OMETS Gs
R pREG&
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 DRAFT Docket No.:
50-206 LS05-84 Mr. Kenneth P. Baskin, Vice President Nuclear Engineering Licensing and Safety Department Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770
Dear Mr. Baskin:
SUBJECT:
REQUIRED ACTIONS FOR RESTART - SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNIT 1 By letter dated August 30, 1984, you requested NRC pproval for restart of San Onofre Unit 1. The staff;-has, previously the associated "return to service plan," submitted on December 23, 1983, as described in the Safety Evaluation Report dated February 8, 1984. Based on subsequent meetings, site visits, inspections, and analysis audits, the staff is preparing a safety evaluation report which will address the seismic capability of San Onofre Unit 1 relative to plant restart. However, as we have discussed, the following additional information and findings are necessary for the staff to complete its evaluation:
- 1. Certification under oath and affirmation that the return to service plan is complete, including all required modifications, and is consistent with the December 23, 1983 program description, as modified by NRC comments.
- 2. Determination that the seismically-induced failure of systems and components for which seismic reanalysis and upgrading have not been completed would not prevent structures, systems and components required to safely achieve a hot standby condition from performing their intended function.
- 3. Confirmation that the as-built configuration of the masonry walls is consistent with the conditions assumed in their seismic capability analyses and tests. This issue was discussed during the site meeting on masonry walls in September 1984.