ML12117A269

Letter to Ross Ridenoure, Request for Information

ML12117A269
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	07/06/2010
From:	William Jones NRC Region 4
To:	Ridenoure R Southern California Edison Co
References
FOIA/PA-2011-0157
Download: ML12117A269 (4)

Text

d

.4 UNITED STATES

" -0 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION IV 1 *612 EAST LAMAR BLVD, SUITE 400

, * *ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76011-4125 July 6, 2010 Mr. Ross T. Ridenoure Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Southern California Edison Company San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station P.O. Box 128 San Clemente, CA 92674-0128

Subject:

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

REFERENCE:

ALLEGATION RIV-2010-A-0094

Dear Mr. Ridenoure:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) recently received information concerning activities at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. We request that the Southern California Edison Company evaluate the information described in the enclosure to this letter and submit the results of that evaluation to Region IV Office. If the Southern California Edison Company determines a concern to be substantiated, please discuss the Southern California Edison Company's consideration of appropriate root causes and generic implications of the substantiated concern and the appropriateness of corrective actions taken or planned.

Additionally, if your evaluation identifies any compliance issue with regard to NRC regulatory requirements or NRC commitments, please inform us regarding the requirement or commitment that was violated, the corrective actions taken or planned, and the corrective action documentation that addressed the issue. We ask that you reference our tracking number (RIV 201 0-A-0094) in your written response and also that you make any records of your evaluation available for possible NRC inspection.

The NRC will review your response to determine whether: (a) the individual conducting the investigation was independent of the organization with responsibility for the related functional area, (b) the evaluator was proficient in the related functional area, and (c) the evaluation was of sufficient depth and scope. Your response should describe how each of these attributes was satisfied. If individuals were interviewed as part of your review, your response should include the basis for determining that the number and cross section of individuals interviewed was appropriate to obtain the information necessary to fully evaluate the concerns), and the interview questions used. If your evaluation included a sample review of related documentation and/or potentially affected structures, systems, and components, your response should include the basis for determining that the selected sample size was appropriately representative and Information in this record was deleted in accordance with the Informt Act, exem t" FWi.-

Mr. Ross T. Ridenoure RIV-2010-A-0094 adequate to obtain the information necessary to fully evaluate the concerns. The NRC will consider these factors in reviewing the adequacy of your evaluation of these issues.

Within 30 days of the date of this letter, submit in writing the results of that evaluation to Ms. Bernadette Baca, Senior Allegation Coordinator, at the address listed in the header of this letter. We request that your response include the details of your evaluation and findings related to the validity of the information provided. We request that your response only be sent to Ms. Baca, at the address listed in the header of this letter. No other copies should be sent to the NRC (i.e., your response should not be docketed or otherwise submitted to the NRC Document Control Desk). Any information submitted electronically to the NRC should be provided on a CD or DVD as externally provided thumb drives are prohibited from use on NRC computers. The use of any web-based document room must provide only general support documents to avoid the release of allegation information beyond a "need to know;" i.e.

procedures, work orders, etc.

We also request that your response contain no personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information. If personal privacy or proprietary information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, please provide a bracketed copy of your response that identifies the information that should be protected and a redacted copy of your response that deletes such information. If you request withholding of such material, you must specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have withheld and provide in detail the bases for your claim of withholding (e.g.,

explain why the disclosure of information will create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or provide the information required by 10 CFR 2.390(b) to support a request for withholding confidential commercial or financial information). If safeguards information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, please provide the level of protection described in 10 CFR 73.22. Finally, if you choose to utilize a web-based document room to provide any supporting documents, please specify the web location, any specific access requirements, and folder title of where the documents may be retrieved. In the title, please include Ms. Bernadette Baca's name and the date of this letter. Do not use the allegation number.

This letter and its enclosure should be controlled and distribution limited to personnel with a "need to know." The response requested by this letter and the accompanying enclosure are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L.96-511.

Lastly, please contact Mr. Ryan E. Lantz, Chief, Reactor Projects Branch D, at 817-860-8173 within 5 days to discuss your evaluation or investigation plan and how it incorporates the request for information enclosed. Please provide any additional questions you may have at this time concerning this request.

Sincerely, William B. Jones, C ief Allegation Coordination and Enforcement

4 RIV-2010-A-009 Mr. Ross T. Ridenoure Dockets' 50-361; 50-362 Licensesi NPF NPF-15

Enclosure:

As stated

.4 NQLD C DIS Issue I A concern has been raised about the actions that have not been taken to address the failure/degradation oLf Cell,,3 in safety-related Battery 2B008. Notification NE ()c was created on7)(C) Ito document questions raised by the NRC residen inspertoo related, in part, to "old pilot Cell 13." The jar containing the degraded Cell 13 is still on the rack and not shipped to the manufacturer for failure analysis.

In addition to the response information requested in the cover letter, we ask that your response address or include the following:

1. What actions have been taken, or are planned, to identify the cause of the degradation/failure of Cell 13? When will these actions be implemented and completed?

2. Considering the cells in Battery 28008 were less than 1-year old when Cell 13 was determined to be degraded and inoperable, and you have not yet determined the cause of the failure, what is your assessment of the operability and reliability of the remaining cells?

What is your basis for this assessment?

3. What documentation is tracking the actions related to this failure? Is this in accordance with station procedures?

4. Are the timeliness and documentation of actions to address the failure/degradation of Cell 13 consistent with the Southern California Edison Company's management expectations?

RIV-201 0-A-0094 Enclosure NQTRý ý11C DýOýSUR