ML20023A463

Updates Status of Resolution of Steam Line Break & Seismic Upgrade Issues for Facility,Identified in 820302 Memo

ML20023A463
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	04/08/1982
From:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Remick F NRC OFFICE OF POLICY EVALUATIONS (OPE)
Shared Package
ML20023A459	List: ML20023A456 ML20023A463 ML20023B698
References
FOIA-82-611 NUDOCS 8204190027
Download: ML20023A463 (6)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:i 7 -f[%s\\ ' ' Q .,. e UNITED STATid

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3.s. L

. m.sninctok.o.c.x2s '. !.. y

lqf, c

g' b f. April 8, ic82 44,.. I-MEMORANDUM FDR Forrest J. Remick; Director.. - i Office of Policy Evaluation THRU: Wilitam J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations b .c- .c t Harold R. Denton, Director FROM: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation I;:' ' SAN ON0FRE UNIT 1/- STATUS OF. STEAM LIKE BREAK A

SUBJECT:

~ SEl$MIC UPGRADE I$ SUES ') u . of the steam.line. break and seismic upgrade issues fo 1 w "i :..i i

it -

i !. i. ir - ' identified in my March 2.1982 memorandum,- Steara Line Break I memorandum indicated that we were ' reviewing the. licensee's - 2,11982 analysis relating to the capabilit;y of mitigating.the effects of a steam ' Py March e line break.. ^0pe: review includes a postulated ~ seismic e r, 'i cause 1..- .u.. , steam' gross ; aline break in branch piping'and loss of ECCS. On. March 2,1982, the staff met with r'epresentatives of Southern Californi ting. i< . Edison to discuss the staff's concerns. The licensee's emergency opera procedures Were reviewed to detemine.the adequacy of infomation pr i;- P-to operators for safe shutdown of the plant. The licensee indicated tha 9:.- the bleed-and-feed nothod of decay heat removal using the charging system- . c ?... ond the PORY would.be required for.the case of a steam line break in a i 't line, loss of ECCS,.and simultaneous single failure of the motor !i nitrogen backup supply system (required to operate!the valves) were auxiliary feed ><ater pump. to mee,t,seisate Category "A" requircaents. iThe staf.f concludes that the proposed feed.and-bleed method provides an ' acceptable alterna decay heat 'reMYal. ~ During ths cceting we identified a need for the licensee to (1) upgrade c:neraency procedures, (2) provide analyses of the feed and bleed ca . ii r a i and I3)' train the operators tin the revised procedures. t h 1982 letter transmitting formal.cceants.to the itcensee is enclosed (Se i . ). igggll 'i9$y'- ^ 'XA Copy Hos Been Sent to PDR 7, / yl

. O hl. u., D E-Forrest J. Remick (' Based on our review of the licensee!s February 2,1982 submittal and the r ii 1.;).. ! :.: results.of our March 2,:1982 meeting, we:believe.that: sufficient protec-F 0 i is r tion can be provided c in the short term;.against a :stea n.1ine breat..' i i n i: . if the. licensee upgrades.the emergency operating procedures while we assess :.6 ;<

i whether long-tem hardsare codifications are requiredgr ci.

9:.. un p.-.i h i., :.

r.

i Masonry Walis h At this point in time we cinnot accept:the. licensee's proposed non-linear-

i.

.?.;. innlastic ties history:. analysis methodology as the sole basis :for cyaluar. ii.. - e !! i i ; e =! . ation and qualification of the: masonry walls'-at SONGS Unit 1.7 That is ; t ' i not to say that the. walls do not have significaat seismic resistance;'.sii!,

1. :i.i e n. only that the propo. sed method of proof.:has in itself:shortcanings that !: 'i

i'. - 1 r need correction before;a complete understanding of, the margins available e.

.eq.r..d.: e .i r can in our opinion be adequately characterized.', c t 4

ui...

Cur letter to the licensee dated February 17, 1'932 proposed the following. i

: 'i i f L

two alternatives for resolving this issue:.(1) ailimited scope test program -'. : t, I s. to. provide relevant test data for_ the validation of: the 1icensee's proposed i. i e I t ' i' methodology with a concurrent effort to address.specif.ic questions raised:c. .1 1.. l.- I': 4.n. ' in the staff's letteri. or.(2} a routine,' time-tested elastic evaluation of.5:.. i i a..( the valls based on present.NRC'critoria and imple, entation of necessary wall i !: ' i w-adificat' ions as dictated by the elastic. evaluation.bThe. licensee. responded : 1'd.r co our-letter on March.15,:1982-(See Enclosure 2).-i Ve are currently eval:.it. h m;.'. unting that response. Based on the information.that is available and the statu's of our. feview 11 ::: % -c.i. i regarding these two issu'es, it is our conclusion that no imediate cre :iti;. f u, ; : additional regulatory, action.is necessary at this time.e. Hcwever, we !!::

.:l-o..u? o

.I will require the licensee to address the matters identified above t !: in respfanse to a 10 CFR 50.54(f). request. .W e resolution of:these ;i .i: i a n 1,. issues will be do'cumented in a:1etter to the licensee before.the plant

.i is permitted to return to power operation.

2 .. a i'. r, h.s.>W n Harold R, Denton. Director Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Enclosuress s As stated ( I e

u. L a.c.

I u c.- ) 3/f.ieg?,. untTcosTATes.. ..toEpc)osure3 y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON:.i ":..W:.i . [* 3 g 1 5 - W AsHitjCTON,0, C. 205% ',t-fF * !. E i s S j April 7,1982 - .i } j. i facket No. 50_205 >505-82-04-016 = Mr. R. Dietch Vice President )".:..: _'..-':..i.. . ; i.

• NucTear Engineering and Operations -

..r Southern Californi.a Edison Comparty i: ..w! "; r h r - i. i. 2244 Walnut Grove Avenua =, i;- *: - '2,_.... _ Post Offica Box 800 JJ ~ j Rosemead, California ' 91770. :-: 'w: i!.- 5: i 3-

Dear Mr. Dietch:

STCMi LINE BREAK ~INSIDE/0UTSIDE 'CONTAINMENW4 SAN ONOFRE 2.  :: n.?,4'. ' SU3 JECT: NUCLEAR GEhERATING STATION UNIT NO.1. 5 U.".L L '. %'.f ..r;. .- 5 -: et Hr: We.have reviewed your submittal dated Februiry 2,198Z that forwarded., ? .!~i the San Onof e Unit 1 ensrgency operating procedures.ii In eddition; we t.til. t i.i rs : f[ t discussed.our concerns regarding. safe. shutdown.following a. postulated:i ? "I. ! ii J:!:. .A . stes:n line break with your representatives in a meeting on March 2ci1982, vi.9. I, :v:.i. ..r :.! ?. : 5ased on ouf review of your submittal. and.the. March 2c.1982 meetingi wen v, . find that the.information. described in.the enclosure ifs required toia:fv4 U.. : i v :. comple.te our review.

'.b

.. + .. Tu facilitate.the'ccepletion of our review prior to restart from your m'- current outage, please provide your response -bytApril.30s:1982. Sinceri n -i. n this requett is being sent only to Southern California E'dison Company' i' 'r and relates to an approval request by Southern California Edison Co pany f: i concorning an issue specific to San;0nofra Unit 1. no clearance from the i ;. t 4-Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is required .i.:. Sincerely,

-7 x. /, 4 4 -

Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief-Operating Reactors Branch f5 Division of Licensing Enclosur'e: / Request for. Additional Information l(- 1 cc w/ enclosure: (- ..'a h See next page, g,s. ( ~ V

wp ,, i ~ .2 [ April 7, '1982 - ,hY Mr. R. Dietch f. ( cc Charles R. Kocher, Assistant i General Counsel 1,. - i. James Ecoletto, Esquire Southern California Edison Company. Post Office Box 800 - Rosemend, California 91770 ,i ~ David.P., PiSott Drrict','Harrington & Sutcliffe 600 liontgmacry Street J San Francisco, California 941.11 ,i> t. a Ilarry B. Stoche San Diego B s & Electric Company ii P. O. Box 1831 i; San Diego, California 92112 i- .i i ,i P.esident Inspector / San Onofra RPS 1 c,lo t1. S. NRC - P. O. BOX 4323 a- , (f' 1 Citzente, California,92672 = . nayor. City of San Clecents San -Clemente. Cal (fornia 92672 Chaircan

• i-Board of Supervisors a

County of San Diego San Diego. California 92101 i California Depart =ent of Health ATTH: Chief, E'nvironmental - Rediation Control Unit - [ Radio' logical Health Se tion 714 P Street, Room 498 Sacremanto, California. 95814 i. U. 5. Environmental Protection Agency .c:. i h Region IX Offica ,.i - ) ATIN: Regional Radiation. Representative 215 Freeinont Street San Francisco, California ' 94111 t 8 C Robert H. Engelken, Regional A6ainistrator. iclear Regulatory Cer:aitsion, Region V.... - 450 Maria t.ane Walnut. Creek, California 94S96 f

O(KI b i 5 j T REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL I_NFORMATION SAN _ ONOFRE UNIT NO. 1 . DOCKET NO. 50-205_

l.

,{ Uocrade of Emergency Operating Procedures. p.: n,..i! 1 Revise your' emergency operating procedures to provida improve =nt.for : l 1. recognition of system voids and methodsifor.:thein econtrol and.cyantual 3 -a remaval. 2; In section A of.the procedures, assure'that instructions to re-pressurite - '7 (e.g., item 4.1.'9) by initiation of safety. infection oi charging vill.not.. 1. c I.. n i :.1 . i. cause a pressurized themal' shock.to.ithe vessel.wAdditionally.. supply:the;

• analysis that supportsi.the procedures in section.C:.to show that teminatida..

.- 1. item.:4.5,1) would :take. place at primary systsu -.of saf#ty injection (e.g;;iten the integrity of the vcssel and that the HPI .I i ' press'uros that do.not thretemination criteria are not mutually exclusive and can be n 6 3 a steam line break.* Revise your emergency operating procedures to provide improvement of

.. i.

.c i instructions for alerting the operator to steam generator tube. rupture. pn. 1 of increas.ed leakage that may occur: following a steam line bree;k.4... - r .i.: 3. !~ The stenline break procedures should provide clear. neferences throughout n.- 4. to alterr.ative procedures:or methods for decay heat removal -in the events ; feedwater is unavailable..' In.particular', instructions should be provide'd[ 4r >..~ ii .for how to initiate " feed and biced". decay heat removsl. These instructions should iddress systems' neede'd:to.be started.. reset ' tc., in orderJto..get.,:. : ..J 1 e ~ . ;i j PORV oper; ability; charging pump operabjlity, etce..: ir, : f-5. Provide the revised procedures for NRC staff review. t b W.. t z. Analysis'of feed and ' Bleed Capability _ i 6.', Provit(e the NRC staff with an analysis of the feed and bleed' capability. 2 der.onstrati,ng that: Charging capacity is sufficient.for decay heat rensval i.- f PORY capacity is sufficient to depressurize the plant. If not, and feed a. r! b. and bleed is doQ ht high pressurgg show why pressurized themal: shock i (cold chargirig Nater. being added to the vessel at high pressure).is, not a

= '

problem. The operator hss suffici'ent' time to diagnose the event and initiate feeds. .c. and bleed prior to core,uncovery. .t.. ~ ~' Procedural changes that reay' result from this evaluation in the short tem, are not i intended to supersede changes that my resM.t from the ongoing seneric review on.: m

Q ff. I s } (, gy q . z-( Operator Train _ing 7. Confinn that tha operatcrs have.been thorough 1f instructed in the - ia . revised procedures and the safety concern: which pron:pted thes. :.i'.; tu i.,1 - i reYisionS. 6 B 1 6 0 i 2 .c c e C g g. ~

k= :: ::

= m f Q% L to Enclosurc 3 y,,*,- l, 2.', ~f 7",. l g5 l -( Southeri California Edisog Co&psny 4 u. P. O. C OE G OR 2244 WALNUT onovt AygNug P C C Wit AO. CAttr omI A a 5714 m i-o-= K.f.C M KIN Mireti 15, B82 m c se.~cu..e... m..., ~ i. (118167818,8 -{. [ 5.rgTv Asup tegtemme.se n. $l & o ~ c Direttor, Office of Huclear P.eactop P.egulation 'I i 8'EBM Attention;

b. H; Crutchfinid? Chief E. g Dl3D ffQ j

Opera' ting Reactors Branch No. 5; t Division of Ucensin'g' ~ M'n~-~so cm j. U. S. Nuc1csr Rega.latory Com::t ssich ' E EW s. y thshington, D.C. 20555 'b g3 j hntleman:

Subject:

Docket 50-206 Ibsonry Wil Evaluations SEP Topic III. 6 - Ssistaic Design Considerations San Onofre truclear Generating Station. Unit 1 By lette6s dated January 11 and 15,' 1982, we prcvided three reports On describing the seismic reevaluation of trasonry >! alls at January used for these evaluations. the NRC staff stated that d.e In' a letter dated February 1.7, 198.2, non-linear, inelastic tir:n history analysis uthodology could not.be acceptedTh as the sole basis for evaluation and qualification of ths casonry walls. ~ ~ lettei further identified two options for timly completion .r wall evaluations: The letter further " and modification as necessary of the msonry walls. ' indicated that the se,cond option is considered by the staff to be the more desirable and praferred from the standpoint of practidality and cest-effectiveness. We have reviewed the NRC's February 17 letter and the basis fo We disagree with the conclusions in thit latter and ve. conclusions therein.- ' raintain that the inelastic analyses we have performd demonstrqte the. It, ~ capacity of the masonry yalls to withstand a 0.67g Housner ground notion and still is, that we,' was our view et the timb ef the January 20 meting,he adequacy of our. 'f could respond to the liRC'ccmmnts and,de.monstrate tTherefor l' l specific ces:snts raised at the January 20 meting and reiterated in the approach. .C-February 17 letter, .s 6 p M. z .U \\ eacai7ce39 sec315 l =TCP..tDOCK OSOOC2C6 are

6%

.'. '.' ' \\

p c, s, O 'r. D.11. Crvtchfield Fa ch 15, IS8i ~ .I As noted above, the NRC's february 17 letter. identified two proposed i optiens. U hcve examined those options along with other. options for 1 1-corglotion of ttje r:uscary wa11' evaluations, Ve conclude that furthar testing;l 6f msonry walls to validate the. inelastic r.othodolosy (option a) 4s not' 'u necesscry and v:e would intend to respond to this issue further in:our response .to the specific.NRC cocants. ' Furthernaro, we. conclude that perforcance of an - i elastic lineer analysis of the walls and irrplemntation of modifications-structural r.odifications required to force som of'the p1t.nentation of. ' (cption b) is neither practical nor cest-affective. Im m:enry walls into the! - i n10stic rende cod 1d be suffidi'ent to require larg: sc'alo recnalysis of soco. - sti'u tures. This'uould igact the overall cogletion schedule for the seisuic. i revt.luation of the Sac. Onofre Unf(1 structures. In view of the above,*ih order to respond to tha 1'RC staff's stated concern thtt our non-linear tim histor/ cnalysi: cannot be accepted as the. i solo lusis forievaluation en'd qualification of the rcsonry valls; ya propose - i i ,. ;. to perforg 5n alternate analysis utilizin~g the ineltstic spectrua cathod as - r ducribed ih UUREG/CR-0098, "Davelopmnt of Criteria for 5:ismic Peview of : H i selected tiuclear Power Plants and in Section 3.8.4.5.2 of our "aalance of.: c. Plcot Structures Seismic Reevaluation Criteria which es, submitted to the IGC r 17 letter Octed February 23. 1981' This mthod relics solely on the elastic - properties of the elemnts of the cesonry valls, esidefined by ASTM and ACI'. i- -tanderds, to cegute the treaber ductility cssociated with cadh trail serontt '- This tdditional ana'1ysis will, therefore, proYide a separate and independent-basis for cycluetion of the resonry walls. i; In sumary. we do not agree with the, NRC conclusion that the analyses submitted to-date are inadequate for qualification of the msonry - valls at San Onofre Unit i nor do we propose to pursue either of the' options suggested by the Hkt staff in their february 17.19El letter.- Ratherl we.. - ~ propose to respend t6 the technical coments raised by~the NRC staff and to e. perform an alternate analysis df the resonry walls in accordance witti the ,e inciastic. spectrum rethod. He anticipate being able to submit this informtion to the NRC staff by about April 30, 1982. Rt believe that these 1 ac'tions;will permit an enoditious cogletion of the review 'of th'e resonry

• t valls at San ~0nofre Unit 1.

( l If you wish to further discuss this matter, pinse let us Eno<,- i. Very' truly yours, L Y /+& ' L 1 ~ i ~ c ._}}