ML20136G712

Summarizes 841108 Telcon W/Util Re Commission Addressing Legal & Policy Issues & SER at 841119 Meeting

ML20136G712
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	11/15/1984
From:	Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Asselstine, Bernthal, Roberts NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20136F570	List: ML20136F564 ML20136G574 ML20136G595 ML20136G606 ML20136G634 ML20136G652 ML20136G658 ML20136G664 ML20136G672 ML20136G683 ML20136G691 ML20136G699 ML20136G706 ML20136G712 ML20136G716 ML20136G721 ML20136G979 ML20136G999 ML20136H016 ML20136H034 ML20136H048
References
FOIA-84-885 NUDOCS 8508190620
Download: ML20136G712 (1)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _

...~a..

%,, UNITED STATES

" ["' ~

2-

? o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655

{- ,I b

%, * * .

• J November 15, 1984 CHAIRMAN MEMORANDUM FOR: Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal Commissioner Zech FROM: Nunzio J. Palladino M@[ Ifi ,

U

SUBJECT:

SAN ON0FRE UNIT 1 I received a call on November 8,1984 from Howard Allen, President, Southern California Edison (SCE).

He said that SCE was facing a January 1,1984 deadline and that SCE had learned of the Commission's scheduled November 19, 1984 meeting on legal and policy issues. He said SCE was aware that the staff was preparing the SER and understood it could be done by November 15. He asked why the Commission could not address the entire matter on November 19. I replied that I would check into this.

I told Mr. Allen that I was informed the staff needed approximately two weeks to prepare the SER and that nothing was said at our agenda planning session about a staff SER by November 15. I said I was concerned that multiple communications points between NRC and SCE were leading to a mix-up of information. I urged that, on information of this sort, SCE communicate through OGC for Commission-level activities and through EDO for activities with staff. I said my reason for this was to assure that both NRC and SCE are accurately receiving information.

Mr. Allen said SCE wanted to do what it could to assist in keeping matters on track. He noted the scheduling of the ACRS subcommittee meeting and said that SCE was unclear on what stance it should take. I responded that the ACRS was interested in the technical aspects of the case and had scheduled a subcommittee meeting based on an expected SER date of November 21.

Mr. Allen mentioned again the SCE tight time deadline. I said that the Commissioners and the staff were aware of this, cc: EDO OGC OPE SECY 8508190620 850709 BE L849885 PDR [

r . -

1. jse ten #o b

~,, UNITED STATES E o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h.. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

\,*****/

5/15 E84 MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Palladino FROM: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

DECISION REGARDING RESTART OF SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT 1 In response to your request of November 7,1984, provided below are staff views on the necessary schedule for Commission action with respect to Southern California Edison Company's (SCE) capability to meet the terms set by the California Public Utilities Comission.

The PUC decision, issued on May 2, 1984, established the following requirements:

a) Return San Onofre 1 to full service by January 1,1985 or begin to accrue liability up to a maximum equal to the revenues collected on San Onofre 1 for 1984.

b) Full service is defined as either "200 consecutive hours at 90%

of capacity or 30 days continuing operation at 65% of capacity."

Under the first alternative to achieve full service, the plant would have to run at 90% capacity from about December 23, 1984 to January 1, 1985.

Realistically, power generation would have to begin well before that to ensure no interruptions occur during the power run.

Under the second option, Unit I would have to be generating electricity by ,

December 2,1984 and maintain an average capacity of 65% for the month. l Prior to reaching full power, there are startup tests that must be performed '

after criticality is achieved, including physics tests and heat balances.

The staff estimates that this process, from criticality to full power criAIRuN-RECDoperation, would take approximately two weeks.

15 tm 64 h.i 16

Contact:

E. McKenna, NRR x27468 LMdO[ '

d

Chairman Palladino l Based on these considerations, the staff agrees that the SCE's characterization of the schedules involved are reasonable and that prompt Commission action would be necessary if SCE is to satisfy the conditions set by the PUC.

\D E n .k ~

W) liam J. Dircks Axecutive Director for Operations V

cc: Comissioner Roberts Comissioner Asselstine Comissioner Bernthal Comissioner Zech SECY OPE OGC ACRS I

l

l vf ucoq% UNITED STATES g 8  % NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION /

t j WASHINGTON, O. C. 20565 l

'%,*****./" November 7, 1984 CHAIRMAN l

MEMORANDUM FOR: Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal Commissioner Zech FROM: Nunzio J. Palladino

, mkd

SUBJECT:

SAN ONOFRE UNIT 1 RESTART My memorandum of November 7, 1984 on this subject reported on a phone call from SCE representatives. Today, my office received a follow-up call from SCE. We were informed of the following:

1. Under the terms of the California PUC order, Unit 1 must have been in operation for 30-days by December 31, 1984. The PUC order allows for a 30-day relaxation of the deadline. The 30 day period was intended to deal with unforeseen technical problems in plant restart rather than administrative problems such as delays encountered by SCE in getting NRC restart approval. However, SCE is not forbidden by the PUC order from attempting to obtain PUC relief <

in the event of administrative problems and would attempt to do so if necessary.

2. Assuming that the plant can be restarted without technical problems, SCE estimates that it needs 37 days from the date restart is authorized by NRC to satisfy the 30-day operation requirement by December 31, 1984. However, to accommodate possible technical problems, a more practical estimate is that SCE will need 51 days (i.e., an additional two weeks).

l My office communicated this information to NRR and was informed l that NRR had received similar information from SCE and agreed I with the SCE estimates.

l ec: EDO OGC OPE SECY, piti,_ , - ,

stI @ OV90 '

_-.__..m__-__. _ _