ML13331A804
| ML13331A804 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 04/22/1985 |
| From: | Zwolinski J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Baskin K Southern California Edison Co |
| References | |
| GL-83-028 LSO5-85-04-027, LSO5-85-4-27, NUDOCS 8504240234 | |
| Download: ML13331A804 (4) | |
Text
April 22, 1985 Docket No. 50-206 LSO5-85-04-027 Mr. Kenneth P. Baskin Vice President, Nuclear Engineering Safety and Licensing Department Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770
Dear Mr. Baskin:
SUBJECT:
GENERIC LETTER 83-28, REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (ITEMS 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, and 3.2.2)
The staff is continuing its review and evaluation of Southern California Edison Company's responses to Generic Letter 83 Generic Implications of the Salem ATWS Event. Based on our review as of this date we have identified the need for additional information for the San Onofre Unit 1 facility as listed in the enclosure. It is requested that you provide the information identified in the enclosure within 45 days of receipt of this letter.
This request for information was approved by the Office of Management and Budget under clearance number 3150-0011. Comments on burden and duplication may be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Reports Management Room 3208, New Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20503.
Sincerely, b
semed by John A. Zwolinski, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #5 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
DISTRIBTION Request for Additional Docket File EJordan Information NRC PDR BGrimes Local PDR JPartlow cc w/enclosure:
ORB #5 Reading CJamerson See next page HThompson WPaulson OELD ACRS (10)
GHolahan GZwetzig, RV JHopkins DL:ORB#5 DL:0RB 5 DL:ORB#5 CJamerson:
I aulson JZwolinski 40' f/]/85
/3/85 U 4 5
8504240234 850422 PDR ADOC& 05000206
Mr. Kenneth P. Baskin 2 -
April 22, 1985 cc Charles R. Kocher, Assistant Joseph 0. War(-, Chief General Counsel Radiological Health Branch James Beoletto, Esquire State Department of Health Southern California Edison Company Services Post Office Box 800 714 P Street, Office Bldg. 8 Rosemead, California 91770 Sacramento, California 95814 David R. Pigott Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 600 Montgomery 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, California 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
ENCLOSURE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATING TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO.:
50-206
- 1. Position 3.1.1 of Generic Letter 83-28 (GL 83-28) states that licensee reviews should "...assure that post-maintenance operability testing of safety-related components in the reactor trip system is required to be conducted and that the testing demonstrates that the equipment is capable of performing its safety function before being returned to service" (underlining added).
Your response to this item (SCE letter dated November 28, 1983), indicates this guidance is met for the reactor trip breakers.
For other safety-related components in the reactor trip system, however, your response is less definitive.
For example, you indicate an inter-disciplinary Retest Committee will determine the minimum test requirements for these components.
From this statement, it would appear that in some cases testing might not be required. Also it is not clear that 'minimum' test requirements would necessarily be the same as those required to assure the capability to perform the intended safety function.
Based on the foregoing, please address the following:
- a.
Please state whether all safety-related components in the reactor trip system will be required to be tested following maintenance.
- b. If testing will be waived in some instances, please describe the criteria to be used in granting such waivers.
- c.
Please state whether the minimum post-maintenance testing will be sufficient to demonstrate the equipment is capable of performing its safety function before being returned to service.
- 2. Position 3.1.2 of GL 83-28 states that licensees should submit the results of their checks of vendor and engineering recommendations to ensure that any appropriate test guidance is included in the test and maintenance procedures or the Technical Specifications, where required.
Your response of November 28, 1983, describes how station test and maintenance procedures have been developed, but does not describe the results of the check of vendor and engineering recommendations that was performed in response to this request.
Please submit the results of your check of this request. Please submit the results of your check of this documentation, and describe the corrective action that has been taken, if any. Please note that this check should cover all components of the Reactor Trip System - not just the trip circuit breakers.
ENCLOSURE
- 3. Position 3.2.1 of GL 83-28 states that licensees should "...assure that post-maintenance and operability testing of all safety-related equipment is required to be conducted and that the testing demonstrates that the equipment is capable of performing its safety functions before being returned to service" (underlining added).
As with Position 3.1.1, your response leaves open the possibility that some components may not be required to be tested and addresses testing in terms of 'minimum requirements' rather than assuring the capability to perform required safety functions. Accordingly, for the components covered by Position 3.2.1, please respond to Items a, b, and c listed under Question 1, above.
- 4. Position 3.2.2 of GL 83-28 states that licensees should submit the results of their checks of vendor and engineering recommendations to ensure that any appropriate test guidance is included in the test and maintenance procedures or the Technical Specifications, where required.
Your response of November 28, 1983, describes how station test and maintenance procedures have been developed, but does not describe the results of the check of vendor and engineering recommendations that was performed in response to this request. Please submit the results of your check of this documentation, and describe the corrective action that has been taken, if any.