ML20041E596
| ML20041E596 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 02/25/1982 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Dellums R HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20041E597 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203110128 | |
| Download: ML20041E596 (2) | |
Text
5 60- '2.c4..,
l '- l gocycnnn e
PROD O j J /aob
~
?EE 2 -.. *
resentatives (E Qtru a %.
@ 88 Washington, D.C.
20515 g
'b
Dear Congressuan Dellums:
93 This is in response to your letter of January 29, 1962, to Chairaan Palladino l
I regarcing San Onofre Unit tios.1, 2 and 3.
Many of the concerns you raise are related to the San Onofre Unit ilos. 2 ano 3 licensing proceecing. These issues are currently before both the Atcaic Safety anc Licensing Board (ASLS) and Ine Atomic hatety and Licensing Appeal uoarc, and r.tay in tne near future ccT.e Defore the Co:cission for consideration. Since these matters are under consiceration in tne Com.aission's acjudicatory proces:, it would be inappropriate for the Chairnan to respond to the substance of your concerns at this tiae.
Accorcingly, your letter has been referrec to ce for reply. Tne otner concerns you raise are related to the cecision of Hovencer 1C,1961, by the Director of duelear Reactor Regulation denying tne request for revoking or suspencing the San Oncfre Unit 1 operating license. The Cor.uission presently has this matter under consiceration. The folloaing unterial on these issues is provided for your information.
The GC staff fincings with regard to the sets:.iic issues you raise are given in Section 2.5 of the han unofre Unit lios. 2 and 3 Safety Evaluation Report (5ER)
(Enclosure 1.) The A5LS Findings regarding the seismic safety of San Onofra Unit :ios. 2.and 3 are given in the Board's Partial Initial Decision issued January 11,19d2 (Enclosure 2). Regarding the specific points you raise.concerning Seological and seismological considerations pertaining to the San Onofre site, these matters were among the issues pursued at the hearing. Substantial evidence on eacn of these points was presenteo by all parties. For the Licensing boards fincings bearing on the points you raise, I woulc refer you to the follouing specific findings in Enclosure 2: 50.(at page 77), 133 (at page 102),137 (at page 104), '94 (at pabe 152), GG (at page 206), 50 (at page 210) anc 9 and 10 (at page 214). The safety significt.nce of the reactor vessel installation (rotated 100 e rees from the planned orientation) is discussed in Section n
5.3.4 cf the SER. The adequacy of on-site ccergency prepareoness at San unofre is discussed in Section 13.3 of tne 5t.h anu Supplemnts 2, 3 and 4 to the 5dP. (Enclosures 3, 4 ana 5). The A5LB findings reg 6rding un-site emergency preparedness are given in Enclosure 2.
The staff and FEMA conclusions regarding off-site energency preparedness necessary for the issuance of an operating license authorizing full-po-er operation are part of the hearing record, and an ASLB oecision in this area is expected in the near future.
In this regarc, I would note that the Science Applications Inc. Study wus a matter specifically acdressed at the hearing.
. h
.:=;u NN
==
la-.w-g:,3;;;;;-- nnu
- G
==:
-T 3-.:. ::-:-,. ;.
~.*=c.
= ~.%
l;;;;;;;..ji.=' :=.... " " m :....=
======d-
= " =
8203110128 820225
.: = =:=.==
t r
..s.wev.le :.9naic V. valler: -
Fitcily, an in: pendent assign verification,2rc,rc. cc evaiuste 'the sais tic cSsign and quality as: uran:e progran for San Uncire Unit 1;cs. 2 anc 3 has been contracteu for by Southern California Edison Coupez.'. Tile stucy, being ccacuctec of bensral Ator..ic Co.. puny, nus resulted in an interic. report (inclosure 6) whica has seen reviewed by the hRC staff (Enclosure 7, hin suppleaent No. S).
k'ith respect to 5an unofre Unit no.1, ycu incicatea a concern regarcing reactor c
vessel ecurittleaent. Tne uRC staff has a progra: uncerway to evaluate this issue.
Scn unofro Unit no. 1 was one of eight plants tnat uds requested to provice additionni infonnation re3arcin; this issue. Tne licensee responaea by letters dated :Jovec:er 4,1961, anu January 22, IVt2, and concluccc that the plant specific a.lalyses indicate that a vessel integrity safety concern coes not exist thrcush the ead of plcnt life. The imC :taff is reviewing these susaittals.
Your letter also indicated a concern cfserding thc seisnic resi:I:nce capacility cf s n unofre unit,o.1 anc, in particulur, the norti. Lursine auilding extension anc the 5,0st faedaster heater platfona.
The ::RC staff's SIR c ted Nove.tber 16, 1931, acdresses the seisaic aceouscy of the facility (Encicsure 3).
The safety eveication notes that the licensee acs cc 4itted t l
cond ete modifications to upgrade the sei:cic resistance of tne north tursine cuilcing extension anc the west feeduster heater platfons Ly June 1,1942.
I hape that the enclosed infort:ation is respon:iva t your concerns. Let c.c assarc-you that the Co:2:ission uill take all the facts into consideration in reaching oecisions on tne issues of concern to you.
Sincerely, l
1:lllian J. uircks Executive Director for Operations Encio:ures:
1.
Safety Evaluation Report 2.
Ecard's l'artial Initial Decistori issued 01/11/E2 3..
SER Sup,)lement tio. 2 l
4.
SER Supplement No. 3 5.
3ER Supplement No. 4 6.
Interim Report Conducted by General Atomic Company 7.
Sii Supplenent Ho. 5 b.
- - -