ML13333A335
| ML13333A335 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 12/21/1978 |
| From: | Haynes J SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. |
| To: | Ziemann D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| TASK-03-10.A, TASK-08-03.A, TASK-3-10.A, TASK-8-3.A, TASK-RR NUDOCS 7901080167 | |
| Download: ML13333A335 (2) | |
Text
Southern California Edison Company P.0 BOX 800 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE ROSEMEAD.
CALIFORNIA 91770 December 21, 1978 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention:
Mr. D. L. Ziemann, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #2 Division of Operating Reactors U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Gentlemen:
Subject:
Docket No. 50-206 Systematic Evaluation Program San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 Your letter of November 24, 1978 forwarded completed topic assess ments for two SEP topics.
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 examination of the facts defining San Onofre Unit 1 in each topic assessment are provided as an enclosure to this letter.
If you have any questions regarding the enclosed, please contact me.
Very truly yours, J. G. Haynes Chief of Nuclear Engineering Enclosure C2
III -
10.A Thermal -
Overload Protection for Motors of Motor -
Operated Valves.
The NRC assessment contains no reference to information on the docket and, as such, its value as the documentation of a safety assessment is substantially reduced.
It is suggested that docket references be provided for all facts reflected in the NRC assessment.
On Page 2, paragraph 2, it is indicated that we have committed to bypass the thermal overload devices for NOV 720A and B.
NUS recommended that we bypass these devices in their report "Separation and LOCA Environment Assessment of San Onofre Unit 1 Emergency Core Cooling Systems" dated December, 1977.
Our commitment to implement modifications based on the NUS recommendations has -been superseded by the integration of considera tion of such modifications along with other selected backfit modifications into SEP.
As indicated in our August 10, 1978 letter to the NRC, preliminary engineering of plant modifications based on NUS recommendations from their report will not proceed until such time as it is determined to be necessary as part of the integrated assessment of the SEP.
VII -
3.A Station Battery Test Requirements Based on our review of the referenced documents, the duration of the required battery service test is 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> rather than the 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> indicated in the topic assessment. Based on an 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> battery service test requirement, the facts upon which the staff has based this evaluation are correct.
It should be noted that a proposed change to the San Onofre Unit 1 Technical Specifications which includes a change in the 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> battery service test to 90 minutes is presently under review by the staff.