ML20246F547
| ML20246F547 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 07/07/1989 |
| From: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Craven W CALIFORNIA, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246F550 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8907130296 | |
| Download: ML20246F547 (6) | |
Text
--;
q
- [,ca%
UNITED STATES -
g?.} g r (,g,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 205S5
\\,"v /
JUL 0 71989 The Honorable William A. Craven California Senate Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Mr. Craven:
I am responding to your letter of June 20, 1989, in which you requested information regarding operation of Southern California Edison's San Onofre Unit I facility.
You indicated that a constituent had expressed interest in a problem regarding bolts in the thermal shield. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has been aware of the problem with bolts at the San Onofre f acility since January.1989.
The thermal shield (see enclosed diagram) is a 2-1/2-inch-thick cylinder that surrounds the reactor core barrel.
Its purpose is to absorb gamma rays emitted by the reactor to reduce heating and consequent thermal stress in the reactor vessel wall. The thermal shield also absorbs high-energy neutrons, reducing irradiation damage to the vessel wall.
Bolts are used to attach the bottom of the thermal shield to the core barrel, and spring-like devices called flexures are attached at the top.
Four lateral displacement limiters are also located at the top.
On January 3,1989, Southern California Edison 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 inspected were found to be broken.
In addition, the locking devices for two bolts and the locking device for one dowel pin had cracks.
Five out of six flexures at the top of the thermal shield have been broken since 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 was made which con-cluded that the flexures were unnecessary.
In reviewing the results of the January inspection, the licensee found no evidence of damage to, or motion of, the thermal shield.
On January 31, 1989, the NRC sent the licensee a letter requiring that this matter be resolved to our satisfaction before plant startup. The licensee and its consultant, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, provided an analysis of the thermal shield in its present condition. The analysis concluded that the thermal shield is expected to remain safely in place. However, even under the worst conceivable case of thermal shield movement, flow of cooling water to the reactor core would not be significantly affected.
On the basis of the analysis, the licensee proposed to return San Onofre Unit I to power and monitor the condition of the thermal shield during operation by using neutron noise analysis and acoustical techniques. Although the sixth flexure is no longer necessary, the licensee's monitoring program includes monitoring of this flexure as failure of the sixth flexure could be an indica-tion of motion of the thermal shield beyond that predicted. The licensee concluded that the neutron noise analysis would detect a change in vibration 8907130296 890707
'[
DR ADOCK 05000206 I
l The Honorable William A. Craven JUL 0 71989 should the sixth flexure fail, and if that happened, the licensee would shut the plant down for repairs. The licensee also agreed that a mid-cycle inspec-tion would be conducted not later than June 30, 1990, to visually confirm the expected behavior of the thermal shield.
If the inspection proves satisfactory, the licensee will operate the facility until about January 1991, at which time repairs of the thermal shield will be made.
Based on the foregoing, the NRC staff issued Amendment No.127 to the operating license for Unit 1 on May 15, 1989. The amendment authorizes operation of the unit, subject to implementation of the monitoring program and mid-cycle inspection of the reactor vessel thermal shield. These requirements provide reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered. The safety evaluation attached to the amendment describes the present condition of the thermal shield, the safety implications of this condition for continued operation, and NRC's basis for allowing 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.
If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact me.
Sincerely,
)
7f Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
Thermal Shield Diagram 2.
Amendment No. 127 for SONGS 1, dtd 5/15/89 3.
Letter to SCE dtd 5/16/89 l
', " The,'Hono.rable. William A. Craven JUL 0 71989 should the sixth flexure. fail, and if that happened, the licensee would shut the plant down for repairs. The licensee also agreed that a mid-cycle inspec-tion would be conducted not later than June 30, 1990, to visually confirm the
. expected behavior of the thermal shield.
If the inspection proves satisfactory,-
.the licensee will operate the facility until about January 1991, at which time repairs of the thermal shield will be made.
Based on the foregoing, the NRC staff issued Amendment No.127 to the operating license for Unit.1 on May 15, 1989. The amendment authorizes operation of the unit, subject to implementation of the monitoring program and mid-cycle inspection of the reactor. vessel thermal shield. These requirements provide.
. reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the' public will not be endangered. The safety evaluation attached to the amendment describes the present condition of the thermal shield, the safety implications of this condition for continued. operation, and NRC's basis for allowing 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.
If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact me.
Sincerely, Original signed by.
Thones E. Murley Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1., Thermal Shield Diagram 2.
Amendment No. 127 for SONGS 1, dtd 5/15/89 3.
Letter to SCE dtd 5/16/89 DISTRIBUTION l Docket J11e.(50-206)da "
TMurley/JSniezek c
NRC PDR w/cy of~ incoming" FMiraglia Local PDR w/cy.of incoming DCrutchfield ED0#4580 FGillespie EDO Reading JMartin, Region V JPartlow GHolahan PD5 Reading w/cy of incoming MVirgilio DMossburg, PMAS(ED0#4580) w/cy of incoming OGC CTrammell w/cy of incoming GKnighton MKrebs JLee PD5 Green Ticket File DHickman g
1
[GREENTICKET4580)
- g#
/O' hfen ~
r
- Seetprevious concurrence r
DR{P/PD5 DRSP/PD5*
D5 Jteei Hickman:dr BCalure
- pd ur G j@ on 6/ D/89 6/29/89
[p/p/89 6/30/89 4 /.3/89
/g/89 3
g &g (A).TSdP p(
- 36 Ap ADP/NR j M 1.g'.__
,I m/SLITP PA MVi flio fa lan JPartl w TMurley
/7 bs
]/s/89 q g/89 7 /6 /8
}//89 7
.; 7,
~
~ J-ENCLOSURE 1
[
CORE BARREL i
k A
- m CmCu naC i s ei i
6 EPCCIMCN TURC i s t
l I
f
)[
Q NO DAMAGE NOTED i '
[
,) fSPECIMEN BASKET A
y EXPANSIDN DINT
\\
REXI.stC 5 0F 6 BROKErl OR CRACKED SINCE 1978 t
FIXTURE t10 CHANGE NOTED CTYP G PLACCS)
LIMrTCR KEY CYP 4 PLACES)
THERMAL SHIELD 1
TERMAL SHIELD SUPPORT 3 LOCK CTYP G PLACCD 5 BOLTS PER SUPPORT BLOCK, 3 BOLTS (TOTAL) BROKEN AFFECTING 2 0F 6 SUPPORTS
'[..,,un$\\
[ h,/l }
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ENCLD
~~:'PE 2
- gg.);
usamctow.o. c.rosss N 'M/
- ,..+
May 15, 1989 Docket fio. 50-206 Mr. Kenneth P. Baskin Vice President Southern California Edison Company 224s Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Sox 800 Rosemese. Ct.11forn16 91770 Lear Hr. Easkin:
SUBJECT:
ISSUANCE OF AMENDMEliT NO. 127 TO PR SAN ONOTEE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO.1 (
The Cornissior, has issued the encloseo Amendment No.127 to Provtstonal Operating License. No. OPE-13 for San Onofre N No. 1.
to your application dated February 17.1989, as supplemented March 21 atd 2
, ano May 3 and 8.1989.
The amener.wnt provides for a reactor vessel thermal shield monitori
~
.nd mic-cycle inspection until the themal shield fasteners are repaired curing the fuel cycle XI refueling inc 10-year ASME Inservice Inspection.
and plan for the repair of the them 1 shield.SCE is requesteo Specific subjects that should of new flexures and modification to the limiter keys.be a informat1on within 90 days.
Please provide this When the thermal shield and core barrel are removed, an ultrasonic test of support block ledge should be perfomed from the inside of the core barrel. An f
1 g f y,2 '? LOO $
f1 i
E__
i
~
Mr. Kenneth P. Baskin
~2-Pay 15, 1;Eg ultrasonic examination should also be performed on a representativ the cere barrel-to-lower support plate weld.
performed of the entire weld from both the inside and outside surface.A Copies of our related Safety Evaluation and Notice of Issuance are also enclosed.
Sincerely, CA<A #/.^ /r -
Charles M. Tramell. Senior Project Manager Project Directorate Y Division of Reactor Projects III,
!Y, Y and Special Projects Etclosures:
1.
Irendtnent no.127 to License No. DPR-13 2.
Safety Evaluation 3
Nottce of issuance cc w/ enclosures:
See next pace i
O l
l l
f
[
{-
l Mr, Keimeth P. Beskin Southern California Edison Coc.pany San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1 CC Mr. Kenneth P. Baskin Vice President Southern California Edison Cor.pany 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770 David R. 71gott Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 600 Montgomery Street San Francisco, California 94111 Mr. Robert G. Lacy Hanecer, Nuclear San Diego Gas & Electric Company P. D. Box 1831 San Diego, California $2112 Resident Inspector / San Onofre NPS U.S. KRC P. D. Box 4329 San Clemente, California 92672 Kayor City of San Clemente San Clemente, California 92672 thaiman Boaro of Supervisors County of San Ofego 2600 Pacific Highway Room 335 San Diego, California 92101 Regional Actinistrator, Region V U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 2450 Marie Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Er. Paul Stalinski, Chief Radiological Health Branch State Department of Health Services 714 P Street, Office B1dg. f8 Sacramento, California 95814 l
b..*.
- <py, \\
~.
^
UNITED states
[,Y i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
s, (,f f -
ussmorow. c. c.nosss
%;..C/4/
)
l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA E0150h COMPANY SAN DIEGO GAS AND. ELECTRIC COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50 206 SAN ONDFEE 1:UCLEAR GD.TRATING STATION, UNIT NO. I t#ENDMENT TO PROVISIONAL CPERATING LICENSE Amendment No.127 License No. DPR-13 1.
The Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) has founc that:
A.
The application for amenement by Southern Califernia Eosson Company and San Diego Gas and Electric Company (the licensee) dated February 17,1$B9, as supplemented !! arch 21 and 23, and May 3 anc 8, 1989 complias with the stencards sno ra Atomic Er.trgy Act of 1954, as amences (quirements of the the Act), and the Comission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; B.
The facility will operate in confomity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the regulations of the Comission; C.
There is reasonable assurance (1) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering.the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be cencuctec in compifance with the Corsnission's regulations; D.
The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comon dafense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E.
The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CER Part 51 of the Comission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.
f 9
' g 659*2f 6 1 p y
4
2.
3.M as indicated in the attachment to this license ame 3.
This license amendment is effective as of the date of its iss rust be fully implemented as cascribed in the Attachment.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COW.ISSION George. Knighto Director Project Directorate Y Division of Reactor Projects III.
IV, Y and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Attachment:
License Condition 3.M Date of Issuance:
May 15, 1989 I
l
- 3d -
3.M cvele Y Therral Ehield Meniterine Preszen The neutron noise / loose-parts detection systen shall be used to monitor the condition of the reacter vessel thermal shield throughout Cyc31 X or until repair.
Periodic nonitoring of both neutron ;cise and loosa-parts vibrations confirms that no long term una'eceptable 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, inspect the condition o' the thernal shield.
1990 to (2)
During the first 7 days of 1854 power, interin acceptance criteria for neutron noise developed.
These interim cr/ loose-parts monitoring will be iteria will be utilized until the final acceptance criteria is developed.
Final acceptance criteria for neutron noise / loose-parts menitering will be established by performing baseline evaluations for 45 calendar days at t 85% povar following return to service for Cycle X operation. The base line data vill be established by recording a minimum of 16 segments of data information, each of 20 minute duration at 185% power.
Adjustments to the acceptance criteria vill be nada for cycle burnup and boren concentration changes throughout the cycle.
i (3)
The neutron noise / loose parts monitoring system shall be OPIRABLE in MODE 1 with:
a)
At least two horizontal loose-parts detectors monitored for at least five (5) minutes 2 times par days and, b) at least three (3) neutron noise inputs monitored for at least twenty (20) minutes once a week, and be analyzed for cross coheren:e. power spectral density', including phase and (4)
The data provided by the loose-parts / neutron noisa monitor shall be analyzed once per week and compared with the established criteria.
If the data exceeds the acceptance critarias a)
Within 1 day the NRC 'will be informed of the exceedance.
b)
Within 14 days the conditions vill be evaluated and a report provided to the NRC documenting futura plans and actions.
Amendment No.127
~*
-3e -
c) ha demonstrated failed.The plant vill be shutdown should th (3) demonstrated CFERABLE in MODE 1 by perform a)
CHANNIL CHECK at least once par 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> b)
CHANNEL TEST at least once par 31 days The surveillance requirements for neutron n the Power Range Neutron Taux.
(6)
With the neutron noisa/ loose-parts detection instrumentati ineperable for sera than 7 days on Report to the Ccr.nission pursu,antlicensee shall submit a Special specification 6.9.2 within the nartto Appendix A Tecnnical system to operable status.the malfunction and the plans for res cause of (7)
In the casa of a saistic avant of 0. 25 g or greater as indicated en site sensors, a centrolled shut devn shall be initiated.
Before operations to the seismic avant.da:enstrated that no thernal shield da= age h are resumed, it vill be
[s) not, applicable to this licenza condition.The provisiens o 1
k"endment No.127
[
%'\\
UNITED STATES o
3 ',
1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- L
.. r usumorou.o.c.rpss q.; s2]
...+
SAFETY EVALUATIOff EY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR P.EACTOR RELATED TO. AMENDMENT.L'0.127TO PROVISIONAL OPERA SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON. COMPANY SAW DIEGO GAS. AND ELECTRIC. COMPANY SAN OfiOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATIllG STATION, UNIT h0.1 DOCKET NO. 50-206 1.0 It:TRODUCTION By letter cated February 17, 1989, as supplemented March 21 and 23 and May3and6,1989.SouthernCaliforniaEdisonCompany(SCEortheItcensee) requested a change to Provisional Operating License No. DPR-13 for operation of San Onufre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1, located in San Diego County, California.
2.0 DISCUSSION In response to an alert from the reactor vendor that reactor vessel thermal shield festeners at another facility had been found de races SCE inspected the thermal shield for 50NGS-1 on January 3-4, lh89.
Yhe thermal shiald at San Onofre Unit I surrounds the reactor core barra).
It is 21" thick and about 10 feet in height, and wtighs 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 provicea by s'ix flexuras and 4 limiter keys. ftve of the six flexures have been known to have been broken since 1978.
The licensee described the inspection results and presented video tape reccrcings at a January 27, 1989 meeting. During the last refueling outage visual examinations were performed with the 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 confirrec that five of six thermal shield flexure fixtures are broken as detected in a previous inspection. Three cut of thirty thermal shield support block bolts are broken.
bolts in support blocks at the O' and 240' locations.These are the 7/8-inch top No other signiti-cant degradation was observec visually.
Ultrasonic testir.g was not perfor1med.
f D $ '$
U$
f
4 2
The licensee has evaluated operation with the thermal shield in tha concition observed and considered three cases which it character 12es a worst expected, worst credible, and worst conceivable.
The worst expected case involves the degradation of bolts at the third support block, and the sixth flexure remaining intact. The worst crecible case assumes that all support blocks degrade (all bolts broken) and the
-last flexure breaks. The worst conceivable case involves the thermal shield dropping or moving cownward eleven inches to rest on the core barrel radial support keys.
In addition to the analyses presented by the licensee, the licensee proposes to inspect the thermal shield during a June 1990 mid-cycle outa using the same equipment anc rethods used during the January 198g inspecge tion.
The licenste also proposes to use two monitoring methocs while in operation to detect any further degradation of the thermal shield:
neutren noise monittoring and loose-parts monitoring. The licensee proposes to shut down if it determines through the monitoring program that the sixth flexure has f ailed.
3.0 EVALLIATION The video tapes recorded curing the visual examination demon;trate that the thermel shield is still in its original position at this time. The i
tapes do not show any evidence of motion of the thermal shield. The tapes show that three bolts (two in one block; one in another) are protruding sufficiently far beyond allowable tolerances that it is reasonable to assure that they have drifted inward from vibration and are broken.
Because the inspection was only visual it car. net be known if these are the only broken or cracked bults. Licensee's vibration analysis concludes that the 240' and O' blocks are degraded ar,d that the 300' block would pretably degrade during cycle X.
Furthermore, the licensee states and the inspection does demonstrate that the thermal 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 therr.a1 shield motion 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 pradicts that a third support block will probably degrade during operation in cycle X, but that no damage will occur to the themal shield.
The analysis performed by the licensee used a simplified nocel consisting of beam elements-and springs to represent linear and rotaticr41 stiffnesses of the system.
The staff reviewed the pertinent information provided by the licensee and cor.cluded that there are serious flaws in the methodology, modeling and in the evaluation of stresses which would result from the icpactive loacs on the support blocks induced by the vibratory motion of the thermb1 shield.
Because the aralysis was l
found to be unacceptable by the staff, the license has been requested to
-3 perform a mid-cycle inspection and to improve the proposed eenitoring 1
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 thermal shield at the mid cycle outage and changes to the proposed license conditions on thermal shield monitoring.
The Ifeensee agreed with the staff position and confirmed this agreement in its letters to NRC dated May 3 and 8,198g.
In evaluating 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 concern.
The scenario which would cause a concern is that the shielo could drop to the tettom 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:
(1) Failure of the sixth flexure (3)) Shearing off the support blocks which hold theFai (2
shield in the present position, and (4) Failure of the lower core radial supports The staff criteria require that the Ifeenser provide an adequate neutron noise renitoring program which will detect any further degradation of any cf the above elements and that the af ter failure of the remaining flexure, plant will be shut down intnediately thus precluding any further deterioration of the reactor internals. The staff believes that sun an arrangement coupled with the mid-cycle inspection provides ade%cate assurance of safety.
The noise signal from the ax-core power range neutron flux detectors will be recorded periodically anc analyzed to monitor internal vibrations of the thermal shield. Tour accelerometers mounted on the reactor vessel flange will conitor acoustical noise in order to detect the possible appearance of loose parts in the lower dome of the vessel.
The neutron noise 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 would be detectable. The
}
occur, as discussed above. plant would be shut down for repairs should this 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 rest 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 these under these circumstances would not be itkely
~
.l
-4 due to the arrangement of the accelerometers which are mounted on the reactor vessel flange.
In the unlikely event that the loose parts are lifted up against the flow distribution or core support plates, no adverse impact is expected, and these irpacts may be detectable since these locations comunicate sere directly with the accelero-meters.
The licensee and consultant (Westinghouse) have analyzed the changes in
' reactor coolant flow to the core in the event the shield should t drop 11" to the core barrel radial supports.
The changes in flow and flow distribution would be minor and within the design parameters, and are therefore acceptable.
We conclude that operation in cycle X as proposed is acceptable.
4.0 ENVIR0hKENTAL CONSIDERATION Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.21, 51.32, and 51.35, an environmental assessrent and finding of no significant impact have been prepared and published in the Federal Reoister on May 11 1989 (54 FR 20459). Accordingly, based upon the environmental assessme,nt, the Commission has determined that the issuance of this amenement will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
We ha've concluded, based on the considerations discussed above that:
(1)thereisreasonableassurancethatthehealthand'safetyofthe public will not te encangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in ecmpliance with the Comission's regulations and (3) the issuance of this amencment will not be inimical to the commen defense ano security or to the health and safety of the public.
' Principal Contributors:
R. Lipinski L. Lo1s C. Tramell M. Hun Dated:
May 15,1989
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
i DOCKET NO. 50-206 NOTICE OF ISSUANCE.0F AMENDNENT TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (Comission) has issued Amendment i
No.127to Provisional Operating License No. DPR-13, issued to Southern California 4
Edison Company and San Diego Gas and Electric Company (the Ifeensees), for operation of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1, located in San Diego County, California. The amendment was effective as of the date of issuance.
The amendment provides for a reactor vessel thermal shield monitoring pro-gram and aiid-cycle inspectica until the thermal shield fasteners are repaired during the fuel cycle XI refueling and 10-year ASME Inservice Inspection.
The application for the amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Comission's regulations. The Comission has made appropriate fincings as required by the Act and the Comission's regulations in 10 CFR Chapter 1, 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 TEDERAL 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 l
provided supplemental information by letters dated March 21 and 23 and May 3 and B, 1989. These letters provided additional information and revised sSmitments encompassed by the original notice.
f0&$$$lS h
~
{
The Commission 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 B,1989, (2) Amendment No.127to License 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.D. 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 Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention:
Director Division of Reactor Projects - III,1Y, Y and Special P.rojects.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 15 day of May,1989.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N
- - kr
/f Charles M. Tramell, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate V Division of Reactor Projects !!!,
IV, Y and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation j
j ENCLOSUl.E 3
/j.* ase('o, UNITED STATES i, ( ;
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
e wAsmwatow.c. c.rosas
\\ ;.'. M /
May 16,1989 Docket No. 50-206 Dr. Larry T. Papay, Senior Vice President Southern California Edison Company Post Office Box 800 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770
Dear Dr. Papsy:
SUBJECT:
OPERATION OF 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.
These letters identified certain technical issues to be resolved before Unit I restart and requested your assessment of the aggregate significance of the various single failure and other design problems identified in recent sonths.
As discussed during our May 1,1989 meeting and documented in the enclosed meeting report, your letters dated March 17 and April 18, 1989 presentec'the bases for your conclusion that Unit I could safely return to service.
We concur with your characterization of the identified problems and recognize that you have established programs to identify other potential deficiencies.
Ve also understand that there well eay be other design deficiencies hereafter identified by these ongoing pregrams (e.g.
enhanced engineering / design activities, design basis upgrade program) a,nd expect that they will be assessed and handled consistent with established procedures and the requirements of your license. Accordingly, the NRC hereby concurs with your intention to restart San Onofre Unit 1.
This cenclusien was reached in coordination with the Region V Regional Administrator and is also baseo on your satisfactory response to NRC concerns, as decurented in the reeting surr.ary and your written certification dated May 12,1959 that all comitments r.ade to the NRC for actions to be completed during the Cycle 10 refueling outage have in fact been completed.
Sincerely.
0>
l
'f } (,lh h &' f-)
]N) '
actasE$MYe r
V(
Office of Huclear Re or[egulation Enclosures Meeting Sumary cc w/ enclosure:
See next page
l Mr. Kenneth P. Baskin Southern California Edison Comparty San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. I cc Mr. Kenneth P. Baskin Vice President Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770 David R.~Pigott Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 600 Montgomery Street San Francisco, California 94111 Mr. Robert G. Lacy Manager, Nuclear San Diego Gas & Electric Company P. O. Box 1831 San Diego, California 92112 Resident Inspector / San Onofre NPS U.S. NRC P. O. Box 4329 San Clemente, California 92672 Mayor City of San Clemente San Clemente, Califor-ia 92672 Chairman Board of Supervisors
.~
County of San Diego 1600 Pacific Highway Room 335 San Diego, California 92101 Regional Administrator, Region V U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek,, California 94596 Mr. Paul $2alinski, Chief Radiological Health. Branch State Department of Health Services 714 P Street, Office Bldg. f8 Sacramento, California 95814 l
I (7) e
zwzaw:zuzz=::= ; ~.
- aw
~
~ ^ - ~ ~ -
~
~n.~.
g-s...
l:_
ji;
, ' 'r
_ ; ' gag' ' _
, ' !. f. -
~ *-
'o UNITED STATES
'E*
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. [.!
^
o T
d-E.
WASHINGTnN. D. C. 20665 EDO Princioal Correspondence Control j
/
LFROM:
DUE: 07/12/89-EDO CONTROL: 0004500' DOC DT:,06/20/89 a
r6 FINAL REPLY:
LS'in.-William A. Craven
[O
/
'Colifornia Legislature
.TOs Chairman'Zech
.FOR: SIGNATURE OF
- GRN CRC NO: 89-0603-'
Murley
- DESC:
ROUTING:
. ENCLOSES LETTER FROM DUNCAN NCFf>RLAND CONCERNING JMartin, RV SAN ONOFRE
.DATE: 06/27/89 ASSIGNED TO:
CONTACT:
.NRR Murley SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
LNRRRECEIVED:.l JUNE 27, 1989
~ ACTION:
kDRSPiH0LAMAN N T
-NRR ROUTINGi~ MURLEY/SNIEZEK PARTLOW MIRAGLIA CRUTCHFIELD i
GILLESPIE i
MOSSBURG ACTION' 0% TO NRR DIRECTOR BY _ n L 7, /cj79 - -
1 u
J
y
, ; x; o
s! t "
+n
- 1...,i.
g:*
r-g
. y 9.
- .
- .. 1.
OFFICE.OFTTHE SECRETARY.'
.7
.1 CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER. NUMBER:-
CRC-69-0603-LOGGING'DATE:.Jun:26 89:
' ACTION' OFFICE:-
!EDO M
,. AUTHOR::
W. A E C r a v e n :
~ AFFILIATION::
.CA ' (CALIFORNIA) '
l LETTER'DATE:
Jun 20 89.
FILE CODE: ID&R-5 San Onofre'
SUBJECT:
. Concerned about San Onofre unit 1 problems 1with-bolts on1 thermal shields-ACTION:
- Direct Reply E
- DISTRIBUTION:
DSB SPECIAL' HANDLING: None NOTES:
'DATE-DUE:
'Jul-11 89 SIGNATURE::
DATE' SIGNED:
4
. AFFILIATION:-
.i.
f:evd Off. EDO 4-l'1-fi g
O /b' l
gme EDO--~004bec l