ML20148D493
| ML20148D493 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 12/07/1987 |
| From: | Cranston A SENATE |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13308B007 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8801250402 | |
| Download: ML20148D493 (3) | |
Text
.
ALAN CRANSTON
~~
mitcd $tates Etnatt WASHINGTON, DC 20510 December 7, 1987 To:
Congressional Liaison Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Enclosure From:
Mrs. Betty Geismar 3500-413 West
- Manchester Boulevard Inglewood, California 90305
Please comment of a direct reading water level indicator on San Onofre Unit 1.
I forward the attached for your consideration.
Your report, in duplicate, along with the return of the enclosure will be appreciated.
Sincerely,
' Al ran Please addtess enveloce to:
Senator Alan Cranston Senate Office Building Wa shi n;; ton,
D.C.
20510 Att:
Jim Kohlenberger, 202/224-3553 8801250402 870115 ADOCK 05000206 PDR PDR U
s e
i l
November 29, 1987 Hon. Alan Cranston Senato r United States Senate Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Cranston:
For some time now I have been carrying on a running correspondence with Commissioner James K. Asselstine, of the U. S. Nuclear Regula-tory Co mmission. The letters have had to do with the fact that Unit 1 at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station does not have a reactor ve s s el level indicato r.
My letters concerning this matter had actually started in 1983 with a couple of queries to Dr. Roger Mattson, then Director of Reactor Safety of the NRC. I am enclosing photocopies of all of the pertinent correspondence.
I believe my concern is well-taken. In reading about the near meltdown at Three Mile Island I had learned that one of the real, practical prob-lems was that the unit where the problem was located did not have a direct reading water level indicator and the employees were more or less flying blind when it came to trying to determine if there was, in fact, any water left or was the unit about to explode. I realize I am putting this in layman's terms, but it's the best way I can explain it.
In 1983 when we were deciding whether or not to move to Mission Viejo I began my correspondence to see if Units 1, 2 and 3 at San Onofre had this piece of equipment and found that while Units 2 and 3 did, Unit I did not. As you can see from the correspondence, Southern California Edison keeps filing deviation requests to avoid installing this security feature on Unit 1 - I can only gues s because of the cost involved. Unit 1 is, of course, the oldest installation at that location and the one most susceptible to possible rupture - and how are the employees going to know of a possible problem unless they have the equipment to indicate that it could be about to happen?
From Commissioner Asselstine's correspondence it seeme he is power-less to compel Southern California Edison to install this protective equipment. Just recently we had another earthquake in southern Calif-ornia - the one centered out in the desert - and San Onofre notified NRC
Hon. Alan Cranston Page that an "unusual event" had occurred. I fully understand that this designation is the NRC's lowest-level emergency declaration, but I also have read that San Onofre is located just beside an earthquake fa ult. With the series of quakes that have occurred in October and November how can one be sure that San Onofre is not very susceptible to serious damage ? It would seem, therefore, that all eventualities that can be forseen and provided for should be.
afy f
bring any pressure to &,. reason in writing to you is to a sk i you can n Southern California Edison to force them to install a direct reading water level indicator on Unit 1.
If this step is not taken, and soon, it could be a real tragedy.
Sincerely,
_h = w (Mrs.) Betty Geismar P. O. Box 2000-302 Mission Viejo, CA 92690 Enclo sure s g
g wb '
W A x y ' ~y - s W #fu djujW RT Ap-
~M~
n,M/
yk nAd*&
9 P qis mec.
..