ML20033G729
| ML20033G729 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 03/30/1990 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Wilson P SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033G730 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9004120037 | |
| Download: ML20033G729 (6) | |
Text
.
- i.g l
.'4 UNITE D sTATas
[
q NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N 1
E o
I WASHIN019N, D. C. PMb6 1
r k,.....)
l March 30, 1990 l
)
ll 1
j l
The Honorable Fete Wilson United States Senate i
j Washington, D.C.
20510 l
)
Dear Senator Wilson:
j I am responding to your letter of March 5 1990 in which you requested infor-I j
mation regarding operation of Southern California Edison's San Onofre Unit 1 facility. You referred to correspondence that you had received from a nutter of your constituents that expressed concern over bolt failures associated with
)
the reactor vessel thermal shield. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) i staff became eware of this problem in January 1989.
j i
Thethermalshield(seeencloseddiagram)isa2-1/2-inch-thickcylinderthat i
surrcunds the reactor core barrel.
Lts purpose is to absorb ga ma rays emitted by the reactor to reduce heating and consequent thermal stress in the reactor vessel wall. The thermal shield also absorbs hi h energy neutrons, reducing l
irradiation damage to the reactor vessel wall.
olts are used to attach the
(
bottom of the thermal shield to the core barrel, and s ring-like devices called i
' flexures" are attached at the top. Four lateral disp acement limiters are also located at the top of the thermal shield.
[
I Five of the six flexures at the top of the thermal shield have been broken since f
1978. The flexures were originally added to provide radial and tangential restraint to the top of the thermal shield.
When these were discovered to be broken, an evaluation of this condition was completed which concluded that the flexures were unnecessary.
I l
li On January 3,1989, Southern California Edison Company (the licensee) conducted a visual inspection of the thermal shield with a remote camera; 24 of 30 bolts could be visually inspected.
Three bolts out of the 24 bolts inspected appeared i
to be broken.
in addition, cracks were observed in the locking devices for two
}
bolts and one dowel pin. The remaining intact flexure showed no signs of degradation.
In reviewing the results of the January inspection, Southern California Edison found no evidence of damage to, or motion of, the thermal shield.
i l
I n
1884'388E$8833f.g5 gpl s
e i
j i
'f
t The Honorable Fete Wilson,
On January 31, 1989, the NRC sent the licensee a letter requiring that this matter be properly addressed and resolved to our satisfaction before plant Startup. The licensee and its consultant, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, i
providtd an analysis of the thermial shield in its present condition. The atelysis concluded that the thermal shield would most likely remain safely in place. However, even under the worst conceivable case of thermal shield move-M nt, flow of cooling water to the reactor core would not be significantly affected.
the licensee proposed to return San Onofre Unit 1 On the basis of the analysis,ition of the tiermal shield during operation by to power and monitor the cond
)
using n utron noise analysis and acoustical techniques. Although the sixth i
flexure is no longer necessary, the licensee's program includes pionitoring of l
this flexure as failure of the sixth flexure could be an indication of thermal i
shield motion beyond that predicted. The licensee concluded that the neutron noise analysis would detect a change in vibration should the sixth flexure fail, and if that happened, the licensee would shut the plant down for repairs. The licensee also agreed to conduct a mid-cycle inspection no later than June 30 l
1990, to visually confirm the expected behavior of the thermal shield, Contingent upon satisfactory inspection results, the licensee planned to operate the t
t fscility until about January 1991, at which tire the thermal shield would be l
repaired.
Based on this infornation, the NRC staff issued Anendrent No.127 to the operating license for Unit 1 on May 15, 1989. This anendnent authorizes operation of the unit, subject to implen+ntation of the monitoring program and i
mid-cycle inspection of the reactor vessel thermal shield. These requirenents 3rovide reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not se endangered. The safety evaluation attached to the anendnent describes the present condition of the thermal shield, the safety implications of this conditionforcontinuedoperation,andtheNRC'sjustificationforallowing restart of the unit. On May 16, 1989, the staff concurred in the licensee s evaluation of the remaining technical issues and authorized restart of Unit 1.
For your information, I have enclosed copies of the NRC's correspondence of May 15 and 16, 1989, to the licensee.
Following return to service of Unit 1, the licensee decided to repair, rather than inspect, the thermal shield during an outage scheduled to begin no later than June 30, 1990. Southern California Edison Company ultimately concluded that the thermal shield inspection scheduled for June 30, 1990, might require the licensee to perforri inmediate repairs to the thermal shield, and continued operation may not be possible following the inspection. With this in mind, the licensee now considers it prudent to repair the thern.a1 shield and forego any interim inspection.
E b
f
. The Honorable Pete Wilson The NRC staff will actively review the licenste's thermal shield repair plans and subsequent inonitoring program. We will allow continued operation of Unit 1 after repair of the thermal shield only if we are completely satisfied that the l
repairs are adequate, and only if we are confident that the licensee will detect any future degradation of the bolt assenblies.
]
If you have any further questions or concerns regarding this riatter, please contact me.
Sincerely, Original Sipal By:
hmes M. Taylor James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations i
Enclotures:
As stated DISTRIBUTION Docietfile(50-206)
NRC POR w/cy of incoming Local PDR w/cy of incoming EDO #0005237 E00 Reading T. Murley/J. Sniezek J. Partlow D. Crutchfield F. Gillespie J. Martin, Region V PD5 Reading w/cy of incoming G. Holahan J. Zwolinski OGC GPA/CA J. Taylor D. Mossburg, PMAS (ED0#5237) w/cy of incoming C. Trarmell M. Krebs J. Tatum w/cy of incoming P. Shea f
j
'PDS Green Ticket File F. Miraglia j!f U
$ ) ) y\\
/
/
( A) 'RR/
RS N R DRSP DRSP/PD5-0859/P05 TECH ED.
JA RSP/PDS JZwolin@ ski ADP PShea
'JFa4um:dr TriA CET ansnell iolahan JPar ow 3/ /90
/90 3/
3/p /90 3/Sy90 3/fV/90 3/g7/90 RR GPA/CA 3h/90 3/
0 3/ /90
INCLO$UR[ }
C0kt SARREL
)
I k
A i
r i
- mamm va i p 4 >
l
)
1 m
/s e i i
[3PECIMEN TWE j
1 8 t i I
f
[
Q r,
NO DAMAGE N07tD 1
[
%,/ r8PEC14N SAtKtT
\\
y l
.CXPAN8!DN,,0!WT
' A EDWC
$ OF 6 BROKEN OR CRACKED $1NCE 1978 i
NWRE NO CHANGE NOTED i
~
Ns C# 6 Acn>
r LIM: tdt Key
{
C# 4 PLAttt)
THERMAL $N!tLO T T RNAL SHICLD i
IUPPORT 3LD:g i
UYP G PLACED 5 80LTS PER $UPPORT SLOCK, 3 80LTS (TOTAL) BROKEN AFrtCTING 2 0F 6 $UPPORTS e
i
N*.'k'
[NCLOSURE 2
'f
\\
umito stats:
1
+
[
e, NUCLE AM REGULATORY COMMISSION s
usmotow o.c.mu f
May 15,1989 i
I Locket No. 50 206 I
i Mr. Kenneth P. Baskin Vice President i
. Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Ayahue Post Office Eox 800 Rosemead, Ct.11forn16 91770
Dear Mr. Baskin:
$UBJECT:
ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT NO. 127 10 PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GEhEPATING STATION, UNIT NO.1 (TAC NO. 71863) l The Comission has issued the enclosed Asendment No.127 to Provisional
[
Operating License No. DPF,-13 for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1.
The atendment consists of changes to the operating license in response to your application dated February 17,1989, as supplementee March 21 and 23, and May 3 and 8, 1989.
j The anendownt provides for a reactor vessel therwel shield monitoring program end mid-cycle inspection untti the thermal shield fasteners are repaired 4
during the fuel cycle XI refueling e.nd 10 year ASME Inservice Inspection.
l SCE is te uesteo to oevelop and submit for staff approval a conceptual desi n
(
and plan or the repair of the thermal shield. Specific subjects that shou d l
be addressed are plans for the txisting bolts that are not broken, the design I,
of new flexures and nodification to the limiter keys.
Please provide this i
information within 90 days.
l l
1 When the thermal shield and core barrel are remnved, an ultrasonic test of the support block ledge should be performed from the inside of the core barrel. An l
f I
a y 39f
l
- Mr. Kenneth P. Baskin May if, 1989 ultrasonic examination should also be performed on a representative sample of i
the core barrel to lower support plate weld. A visual examination should te performed of the entire weld from both the inside and outside surface.
Copies of our related Safety Evaluation and Notice of Issuance are also enclosed.
Sincerely, lf Charles M. Trasse11, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate V Division of Reactor Projects !!!,
!Y, Y and Special Projects
Enclosures:
1.
Arendment 110. 127 to License No. DPR-13 2.
Safety Evaluation 3
Notice of Issuance cc w/ enclosures:
See next page
I 4
. Mr. Kahneth P. Easkin
$an Onofre Nuclear Generating Southern California Edison Cos.pany Station, Unit No. 1 cc Mr. Kenneth P. Baskin Vice Fresident Southern California Edison Corpany 2244 W.Inut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosesead, California 91770 David R. P190tt Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe 600 Montgomery Street San Francisco, California 94111 Mr. Robert G. Lacy Manager, Nuclear San Diego Gas & Iloctric Company P. O. Box 1831 San Diego, California 92112 Resident Inspector /$4n Onofre NPS U.S. NRC P. O, tox 4329 San Clemente. California 92672 Mayor City of San Clemente San Clonente, California 92672 Chairman Board of Supervisors County of San Diego 1600 Pacific Highway Room 335 San Diego, California 92101 Regional Acministrator, Region V U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission 1460 Maria Lane, suite 210 Walnut Creck, California 94596 Mr. Paul $ralinski, Chief Radiological Hanith Branch State Departnwnt of Health Services 714 P Street, Office Bldg. 68
$acramento, California 95814 i
e
/ss{esQ'g-s UNITE D sTAf ts g44(3
[
r NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N j
g u powotow,o c. tons kvo..*/
10UTHERNCALIFORNIA[DISChCOMPANY UT SAN Di[G0 GA$ AND.IL(CTRIC COMPANY DOCKIT NO 50 206
$AN ONOFEE WDCLEAR Cfk[ RATING $TATION. LINif NO. 1 AMINDN[NT TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No.127 License No. DPR-13 1.
The Nuclur Regulatory Cowenission (the Consnission) has founc that:
A.
The applic6 tion for amenonent by Southern Californie Edison Company and San D1890 Gas and Ilectric Company (the licensee) dawd February 17, 1$89, 45 supplemented March 21 and 23,f theand May 3 ano 8, 1989 complits with the standards and requirements o Atomic Energy Act of IM4, as amendec (the Act), and the Commission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; B.
The fecility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the regulations of the Comission; C.
Thereisreasonableassurance(1)thattheactivitiesauthorized by this aundment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be cenoucted in compliance with the Comission's regulationst D.
The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the publict and E.
The. issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Comission's regulations and all applicable requiremsnts have been satisfied.
N ga J
.t.
2.
Accordingly, the license is apended by the addition of new paragraph 3.M as indicated in the attachrent to this license amendment.
3.
This license anendeent is effective as of the date of its issuance and mst be fully implemented as concribed in the Attachsent.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM15510N N?
M George Knightop rector Froject Directorate V Division of Reactor Projects !!!.
IV, Y and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Reguistion Attachnent:
License Condition 3.M Date of Issuance:
May 15, 1989
o.
= 3d -
3.M cycla X Tharmal Ehield Monitarina Franram The neutron noise / loose-parts detection system shall be used to monitor the condition of the reactor vessel thermal shield throughout cycle X or until repair.
Periodic monitoring of both neutron noise and loose-parts vtbrations confirms that no long term unacceptable trend of degradation is occurring.
The details of this program are described below.
(1)
The unit will be shut down no later than June 30, 1990 to inspect the condition of the thermal shield.
(2)
During the first 7 days of 1 85% power, interim acceptance criteria for neutron noise / loose-parts monitoring will be developed.
These interim criteria will be utilised until the final acceptance criteria is developed.
Final acceptance criteria for neutron noise / loose-parts monitoring will be established by performing baseline evaluations for 45 calendar days at 1 85% power following return to service for cycle X operation. The base line data will be established by recording a minimum of 16 segments of data information, each of 20 minute duration at 1 85% power.
Adjustments to the acceptance criteria vill be made for cycle burnup and boron concentration changes throughout the cycle.
(3)
The neutron noise / loose-parts monitoring systen shall be OPERABLE in MODE 1 with:
a)
At least two horizontal loose-parts detectors monitored for at least five (5) minutes 2 times per day; and, b) at least three (3) neutron noise inputs monitored for at least twenty (20) minutes once a week, and be analyzed for cross power spectral density', including phase and coherence.
(4)
The data provided by the loose-parts / neutron noise monitor shall be analyzed once per week and compared with the established criteria.
If the data exceeds the acceptance criteria a)
Within 1 day the NRC will be informed of the exceedance.
b)
Within 14 days the conditions will be evaluated and a report provided to the NRC documenting future plans and actions.
Amendment No. 127
.h -
c)
The plant will be shutdown eheuld the remaining flowure be demonstrated failed.
(5)
Each channel of the looseapart detection systen shall be demonstrated CPERABLE in MODE 1 by performance of as a)
(3DJofEL cettcR at least enee per 84 hours9.722222e-4 days <br />0.0233 hours <br />1.388889e-4 weeks <br />3.1962e-5 months <br /> b)
CMM0fEL TEST at least enee per 31 days The surveillance requirements for neutron noise monitor are covered by the Appendix A Technical specifiention 4.1 1 for the Power Range Neutron Flum.
(4)
With the neutron noise / loose-parte detection instrumentation inoperable for more than 7 days licensee shall submit a $pecial Report to the con.nission pursu, ant to Appendix A Tecnnical specification 6.9.3 within the next 3 days outlining the e
cause of the malfunction and the plans for restering the system to operable status.
(7)
In the case of a seismic event of 0.35g er greater as indicated on site sensors, a controlled shut down shall be initiated.
Before operations are
- resumed, it will be demonstrated that no thermal shield damage has occurred due to the, seismic event.
(8)
The provisions of Appendix A Technical specification 3.0.4 are not, applicable to this license condition.
j Amendment No. 127
)
' N, h,, -
t,miT80 STATS $
[
NUCLE AR REULATORY COMMIS$10N n ADMMITON. D. C. MGM
$AFETY [ VALUATION BY THE OFFICE.0F WDCLEAR FIACTOR REGULATION RELATID TO AMENDMthT.W0.127T0 PROYl$10NAL OF[ RATING LICtkSt #0. DPR 13
$0UTF[RN CALIFORNIA ID)$0A.CONFANY
$AW Di[GO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
$AN Oh0FRE N'JCLtAk 6[hER,ATING $TATION I;Wli NO.1 DOCKtT NO. 50-206 1.0 thTRODUCT10N By letter cated Februar 17 1589 as supplemented Match 21 and 23 and May 3 and 6,1989, Soutfern,Califo,rnia Edison Company ($CE or the licensee) requtsted a ch6nge to Provisional Operating License No. DPR 13 for operation of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1, located in $sn Diego County, California.
2.0 OlSCUS$10N in response to an alert from the reactor vendor that reactor vessel thert.41 shield futeners 6t another f acility had been found de radte
$CE inspected the thers.41 shield for $0NGS.1 on January 3 4,189. ihe thermal shit 1d at $an Onofre Unit 1 surrounds the reactor core barre).
It is 21* thick and about 10 feet in height, and weighs 48,000 lbs.
It is supported at the bottom by six support blocks and thirty bolts which attach it to the core barrel. Support at the top is provided by six flexurts and 4 limiter keys.
F1)v of the six flexures have been known to have been broken since 1978.
The licensee described the inspection results and presented video tape recordings at a January 27, 1989 meeting. During the last refueling outage visL61 examinations were performed with tie internals installed using a high resolution underwater television camera system. Although the core was loaded during the inspection, selected fuel assemblies were shuffled to provide access.
The licensee confirved that five of six thermal shield flexure fixtures are broken as detected in a previous inspection. Three out of thirty thernial shield support block bolts are broken. These are the 7/8. inch top bolts in support blocks at the O' and 240' loc 6tions.
No other signitt.
c6nt degradation was observec visually. Ultraschic testing was not perf or med.
M h 7ETT~ upP
2-The licensee has evaluated operation with the thermal shield in ths concition observed and considered three cases which it character) es at:
worst expected, worst credible, and worst conceivable.
The worst exacted case involves the degradation of bolts at the third support bloc k, and the sixth flexure receining intact. The worst crecible cose assumes that all support blocks degrade,all bolts broken) and the last flerure breaks. The worst conceivable case involves the ther:41 shield dropping or soving cownward eleven inches to rest on the core barrel radial support keys, in addition to the analybes presented by the licensee the licensee proposes to inspect the thermal shield during a June I990 mid cycle on.tage using the 56pe equipment and methods used during the January 1989 inspec-tion. The licensee also proposes to use two monitoring methods while in operation to detect any further degradation of the thermal shieldt neutron noise sonitoring and loose parts sonitoring. The licenste proposes to shut down to it determines through the senitoring program that the sixth flexure has 1411ed.
3.0 DMUATION The video tapes recorded curing the visual examination demonstrate that the thern41 shield is still in itr, original position at this time. The taps do not show any evidtnce of motion of the thermal shield. The tapes show that three bolts (two in one blockt one in another) are protruding sufficiently far beyond.110weble tolerances that it is reasonable to assure that they have drifted inward from vibration and are broken.
Because the inspection was only visual it cannot be known if these are the only broken or cracked bolts. Licensee's vibration analysis concludes that the 240' and O' blocks are degraded and that the 300' block would probably degrade during cycle X.
Furthemore, the licensee states and the inspection does demonstrate that the thern41 shield is not in the worst credible" condition or close to it because the last flexure is still intact and no support block wear or thern.a1 shiele action has occurred.
Support block wear would be expected if all of the bolts and dowel pins in a block were failed. No evidence exists to suggest that any individual support block assembly has progressed to this condition.
The vibration analysis predicts that a third support block will probably degrade during operation in cycle X, but that no danage will occur to the thermal shielo. The analysis performed by the licensee used a simplified model consisting of beam elements and springs to represent linear and rotational stiffnesses of the system. The staff reviewed the pertinent infomation provided by the licensee and concluded that there are serious flaws in the uthodology, sedeling and in the evaluation of stresses which would result f rom the impactive loacs on the support blocks ibeuced by the vibratory motion of the thermh1 shield.
Because the analysis was found to be unacceptable by the staff, the license has been requested to 1
3 perform a mid-cycle inspection and to improve the proposed monitoring program whereby any further degradation of the shield supporting elements could be quickly detected and appropriate action taken by operating personnel.
At the meeting with the licensee on May 1,1989, the NRC staff presented its requirements for an inspection of the theral shield at the mid-cycle
'\\
outage 6nd changes to the proposed license conditions on thermal shield munitoring. The licensee agreed with the staff position and confirmed this agreement in its letters to NRC dated May 3 and 8, 1989.
In evaluat..,g the safety issues regarding the thermal shield the staff
~
took under consideration the following sequence of events which must take place prior to the situation which may cause a safety concqn.. The j
scenario which would cause a concern is that the shielo coule drop to the bottom of the reactor vessel and therefore obstruct the flow of coolant to the core.
In order that such a situation could exist the shield must be deprived of its supporting elements and the following stages of further degradation would have to occur:
Failure of the sixth flexure Failure of the all bolts at e6ch support block Shearing off the support blocks which hold the shield in the present position, and (4) Failure of the lower core radial supports The staff criteria require that the licenses provide an adequate neutron noise Nnitoring program which will detect any further degradation of any of the above elements and that the plant will be shut down innediately after failure of the remaining flexure, thus precluding any further deterioration of the reactor internals. The staff believes that such an arrangement coupled with the mid-cycle inspection provides adequate assurance of safety.
The noise signal from the ex-core power ranga neutron flux detectors will be recorced periodically and analyzed to monitor internal vibrations of the thermal shield. Four accelerometers mounted on the reactor vessel flange will monitor acoustical noise in order to detect the possible appearance of loose parts in the lower dome of the vessel.
The peutron noice analysis will probably not be effective in detecting gradual degradation of the fasteners, but failure of the last flexure would allow a large beam-mode oscillation at a much lower frequency which wou'd be detectable. The plant would be shut down for repairs should this occur, as discussed above.
The three bolts which were found to be broken will likely drift out all the way anc become loose parts at some point in cycle X.
These parts will mcst likely fall to the bottom of the pressure vessel because of their weight and settle in a location of low flow velocity. Detection of loose parts such as chese under these circumstances would not be likely i
4 i
i due to the arrangement of the accelerometers which are mounted on the reactor vessel flange.
In the unlikely event that the loose parts i
i are lifted up against the flow distribution or core support plates, no adverse impact is expected, and these impacts may be detectable since these lontions communicate more directly with the accelero-seters.
The licensee and consultant (Westinghouse) have analyzed the changes in reactor coolant flow to the core in the event the shield should tilt or drop 11" to the core barrel radial supports. The cnanges in flow and I
flow distribution would be minor and within the design parameters, and j
are therefore acceptable.
We conclude that operation in cycle X as proposed is acceptable.
)
i
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.21, 51.32, and 51.35, an environnental assessment J
and finding of no significant impact have been prepared and published in the Federal Register on May 11, 1984 (54 FR 20439). Accordingly, based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission has determined that the issuance of this amendnent will not have a significant effect on the 1
quality of the human environment.
)
5.0 CONCLUSION
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above that:
(1)thereisreasonableassurancethatthehealthandsafetyofthe public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, i
(2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and (3) the issuance of this anendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the
{
public.
4 Principal Contributors:
R. Lipinski 4
L. Lois C. Tramell M. Hum Dated:
May 15, 1989 i
a 1
z
7590-01 l
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY. ET AL.
DOCKET NO 50-206 l
NOTICE OF ISSUANCE.0F AMENDNENT.TO l
PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE j
i l
l The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (Comission) has issued Amendment No.127to Provisional Operating License No. DPR-13, issued to Southern California l
Edison Company and San Diego Gas and Electric Company (the licensees), for operation of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1, located in 1
San Diego County, California. The asendment was effective as of the date of issuance.
The amendment provides for a reactor vessel thermal shield monitoring pro-l gram and mid-cycle inspection until the thermal shield fasteners are repaired daring the fuel cycle XI refueling and 10-year ASME Inservice Inspection.
The application for the amendment complies with the standards and requirementsoftheAtomicEnergyActof1954,asamended(theAct),andthe i
Comission's regulations. The Comission has made appropriate findings as t
i 1
required by the Act and the Comission's regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, s
which are set forth in the license amendment.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment and Opportunity for Hearing in connection with this action was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on March 2,1989(54FR8854). No request for a hearing or petitions for' leave to intervene were received. Subsequent to issuance of this notice, the licensees provided supplemental information by letters dated March 21 and 23 and May 3 1
- and 8, 1989. These letters provided additional information and revised comitments encompassed by the original notice.
.I
i 5
e 2
The Comission has prepared an Environmental Assessment related to this action and has concluded that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared because operation of the facility in accordance with this amendment will have no significant adverse effect on the quality of the human environment.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the application for amendment dated February 17, 1989, as supplemented March 21 and 23 and
'May 3 and 8, 1989,'(2) Ataendment No.127to L'icense No. DPR-13 (3) the Comission's related Safety Evaluation and (4) the Comission's Environmental Assessment. All of these items are available for public inspection,at the Comission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC 20555, and at the General Library, University of California, P.O. Box 19557, Irvine, California 92713. A copy of items (2), (3) and (4) may be obtained upon request addressed.'to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention:
Director, Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 15 day of May,1989.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION kr
/f Charles M. Tramell, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate V Division of Reactor Projects III, IV, V and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
y-.
w
']
ENCLOSURE 3' i/
umiso sTAteW t
[
3
- . q NUCLEAR MOULATORY COMMISSION g
\\,,ed).;
.i May 16,1989 Docket No. 50 206 i
Dr. Larry T. Papay senior Vice President Southern-California Edison Company Post Office 80x 800 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue i
Rosemead, California 91770 t
Dear Dr. Papay:
$UBJECT: OPERATION 0F SAN ONOFRE UNIT 1 This refers to the NRC Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) dated January 31 1989 and the CAL followup letter dated February 8,1989. TheselettersidentIfied certain technical issues to be resolved before Unit I restart and requested 3
your assessment of the aggregate significance of the various. single failure and other design problems identified in recent months.
i As discussed during our May 1,1989 meeting and documented in the enclosed meeting report, your letters dated March 17 and April 18, 1989 presented the bases for your conclusion that Unit I could safely return to service. We concur with your characterization of the identified problems and recognize i
that you have established programs to identify other potential deficiencies.
l We also understand that there well may be other design deficiencies hereafter identified by these ongoing programs de.g.
enhanced engineering / design
[
activities, design basis upgrade program) a,nd expect that they will be 1
assessed and handled consistent with established procedures and the requirements of your license. Accordin i
intention to restart San Onofre Unit 1. gly, the NRC hereby concurs with your This conclusion was reached in coordination with the Region V Regional Administrator and is also based on your satisfactory response to NRC concerns, i
as documented in the meeting sumary and your written certification dated May 12, 1989 that all comitments made to the NRC for actions to be completed
]
during the Cycle 10 refueling outage have in fact been completed.
Sincerely, i
d U 1 u31
.Mbe, om s ir or j.
Y Office of Nuclear Re r
egulation
Enclosure:
i l
Meeting Sumary l
cc w/ enclosure:
See next page
..~.
Mr. Kenneth P. Baskin San Onofre Nuclear Generating Southern California Edison Company Station, Unit No. 1 l
cc Mr. Kenneth P. Saskin i
i Vice President Southern California Edison Cospary 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue i
Post Office Box 800 j
Rosemead, California 91770 l
David R."'Pigott Orrick, Herrington 4 $wtcliffe I
600 Montgomery Street l
San Francisco, California 94111 l
l
' Mr. Robert G. Lacy Manager, Nuclear i
San Diego Gas & Electric Compen P. O. Box 1831 San Diego, California 92112 Resident Inspector / San Onofre NPS i
i U.S. NRC l
P. 0. Box 4329 San Clemente, California 92672 4
Mayor City of San Clemente San Clemente, California 92672 Chairman Board of Supervisors f
County of San Diego L
1600 Pacific Highway Room 335 San Diego, California 92101
' Regional Administrator, Region V i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210
{.
Walnut Creek, California 94596 Mr. Paul Szalinski Chief i
Radiological Health Branch State Department of Health i
Services 714 P Street Office B1dg. #8 Sacramento,dalifornia95814 l
(7)
G a
)
-..---,.---,,....---..,n.,~,-,,,,,-....,,a
---w w,--.-.
---m-n,-,a en-,s.-~~c,--
+
e,0w oog'o, UNITED STATES
+
[
,e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9
~
5
..I WASHINGTON, D. C. 20665 it, e
j EDO Principal Correspondence Control FROM:
DUE: 03/26/90 EDO CONTROL: 0005237 DOC DT: 03/05/90 FINAL REPLY:
San. Pete Wilson TO:
CA FOR SIGNATURE OF:
- GRN CRC NO: 90-0250 Exocutive Director DESC:
ROUTING:
ENCLOSES LETTER FROM MARGOT HOLMAN, ET AL.
JMartin, RV CONCERNING SAFETY OF THE SAN ONOFRE POWER PLANT DATE: 03/14/90 ASSIGNED TO:
CONTACT:
NRR Murley SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
O'* 'lbW s-
"!"I55'""o$$':'a$1=P
/ 9
(
NRR ROUTING:
MURLEY/SNIEZEK 3[1 f PARTLOW p
MIRAGLIA CRUTCHFIELD GILLESPIE MOSSBURG ACTIOM DUE TO NRR D';RECm BY GI> h I
I*
y 1
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL' TICKET PAPER HUMBER:
CRC-90-0250 LOGGING DATE Mar 14 90 ACTION OFFICE:
EDO AUTHOR:
Pete Wilson--Const Ref AFFILIATION:
UNITED STATES SENATE LETTER DATE:
Mar 5 90 FILE CODE: ID&R-5 San Onofre SUB,7ECT:
Safety of the San Onofre power plant ACTION:
A;;repriate),
DISTRIBUTION:
OCA to Ack, DSB SPECIAL HANDLING: None NOTES:
Margot Holman DATE DUE:
Mar 28 90 SIGNATURE:
DATE SIGNED:
AFFILIATION:
Il^r'd 0ll. 59?
Date
'3 ~ l Y OO The l i '. V-C As 1
EDO 005237 j
l
.