ML20245B514

Responds to Requesting Info Re Operation of Facility W/Cracked Bolts in Reactor Vessel Thermal Shield. Thermal Shield Absorbs Gamma Rays Emitted by Reactor to Reduce Heating & Consequent Thermal Stress in Vessel Wall

ML20245B514
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	06/19/1989
From:	Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Cranston A SENATE
Shared Package
ML19317A209	List: ML20245B514 ML20245B523
References
NUDOCS 8906230206
Download: ML20245B514 (3)

Text

_ _ _ - _ - -

4' I)-

O A' " {g y

• ' '^

1. Iog UNITED STATES j?b {L 8 "

n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

% / June 19, 1989 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Alan Cranston United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Cranston:

I am responding to your letter of May 15. 1989, in which you and Senator Wilson requested.information regarding operation of Southern Califernia Edison's San Onofre Unit 1 facility with cracked bolts in'the reactor vessel thermal shield. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has been aware of the cracked bolts 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 concluded that the flexures were un-necessary. In reviewing the results of the January inspection, the licensee found no evidence of damage to, or motion of, the j thermal shield.  !

On January 31, 1989, the NRC sent the licensee a letter requiring that this matter be resolved to our satisfaction before plant The licensee and its consultant, Westinghouse Electric i

startup. i 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.

OFOA w -

a--__-__ -_- ._ - - - - - . 1

4 a '- ,

. l Based on 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, since f ailure of the sixth flexure could be an indication of motion of the thermal shield beyond what is predicted.. The licensee concluded that the neutron noise analysis would detect a change in vibration should the sixth flexure fail, and if that happened, the licensee would shut down for repairs. -The licensee i also. agreed that a mid-cycle inspection would be conducted not later than June 30, 1990, to visually confirm the expected behavior of the thermal shield. If the inspection proves satis-factory, the licensee will operate the facility until about January 1991, at which time repairs of the thermal shield will be conducted.

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 May 15 and 16, 1989 correspondence to the licensee. If you have any further question on this matter, please contact me.  ;

Sincerely,

@- M. l Lando W. Zec ' Jr

Enclosures:

1. Diagram of the San Onofre Unit 1 Thermal Shield

2. Letter from C. M. Trammell to K. P. Baskin dated May 15, 1989 with enclosures

3. Letter from Dr. T. E. Murley to Dr. L. T. Papay dated May 16, 1989 4

)

/*

ENCLOSURE 1

.\ .

i CORE BARREL i

\ i A

% - 3rcCmts uc is si

[ N SPECIMCN TUBE t

is 4, l ' 9' a NO DAMAGE NOTED

[\

m* - [ .

s

,g /, <>l. a

/gSPECIMEN BASKET

%fu

__ EXPANSION JOINT N- R.EXLRC 5 0F 6 BROKEN OR CRACKED SINCE 1978 FIXTURE fl0 CHANGE NOTED CTYP G PLACES)

{

i LIMITER MEY  !

j GYP 4 PLACES)

(

THERMAL SHIELD t:

• TERMAL $HIELD l' l

i SUPPORT 3 LOCK (TYP G PLACES) 5 BOLTS PER SUPPORT BLOCK, )

~ 3 BOLTS (TOTAL) BROKEN AFFECTING 2 0F 6 SUPPORTS i l

l l

l

{ l

if.

73 a, y  ? UNITED STATES '

, ] (, , p }. , NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

' wasHINoroN, o. c. 2 osse

-ENCLOSURE 2 i N * ,<< #f . May 15, 1989

.i

Docket llo.60-206 1

j Mr. Kenneth P. Baskin Vice President Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue.

. Post Office ~ Box 800 Rosemead. Ct.11forn16 91770-

SUBJECT:

ISSUANCE OF AMENDME!!T 'NO.

127 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION,' UNIT'NO.1 (TA The Comission has issued the enclosed Amendment 127 No.

to Provisional Operating-License No. 1. No. DPR-13 for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Statio to your application dated FebruaryThe amendment tonsists of chang and May '3 and 8,1989. 17,1989, as supplemented March 21 and 23 ,

The amencnunt provides for a reactor vessel thermal shield monitoring and mid-cycle inspection until the thermal shiftid fasteners are repe1 red during the fuel cycle XI refueling and 10-year ASME Inservice Inspection .

and plan for the repair of the thermal shield.SCE is requesteo to Specific subjects that should of new flexures and modification to the information within 00 days.

limiter keys.be add Please provide this When the thermal shield and core barrel are removed, an ultrasonic test of support block ledge should be performed from the inside of the core barrel. An

%p, ,,y@Mf

,1 n h O*n }

1

Mr.' Kenne th Pi Baskin May 15, 1989 l

ultrasonic examination.should the core barrel-to-lower alsoheld.

support plate be performed on a representative sample i performed of the entire weld from both the inside and outside surface.A vis j j

Copies of our related Safety Evaluation and Hotice of Issuance are also enclosed.

Sincerely,  !

u

k. /r Charles Directorate Project M. Trarmell,VSenior Project Manager Division of Reactor Projects-III, IV, Y and Special Projects

Enclosures:

1. Amendment No. 127 to License No. DPR-13

2. Safety Evaluation 3 Notice of Issuance cc w/ enclosures:

See next page I

6

t J

. 1 Mr. Kenneth P. Baskin I Southern California Edison Company San Onofre Nuclear Generating  !

Station, Unit No. 1 '

4 1

i CC i

Hr. Kenneth P.'Baskin i

'Vice President l Southern California Edison Company i 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Fosemead, California 91770 {

David R. ~Pigott Orrick, Herrington'& Sutcliffe .

600 Hontgomery 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, California 92672 Chairman Boaro 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 Szalinski, Chief Radiological Health Branch State Department of Health Services 714 P Street, Office Bldg. #8 Sacramento, California 95814 i

r g7 7(

^

l; l-

&cDCic

-[ oq[0g.

f -

- t UNITED STATES ,

y, 2 i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g W ASHING TO N, D. C. 20555

. 2; .epj l.

1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS0h COMPANY SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC. COMPANY _

DOCKET NO. 50-206 i

SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 1 AMENDMENT TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No.127 License No. DPR-13 1.

The Nuclear Reguintory Comission (the Comission) has founo that:

A.

The application for amenoment by Southern California Edison Company and San Diego Gas and Ilectric' Company (the licensee) dated February 17, 1589, 1989 complies with the stancards ano reas supplemented March 21 and 2 Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amenceathe (quirements of the Act), and the Commission'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 ansendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conoucted in compliance with the Comission's regulations; D.

The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E.

The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Comission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.

O o n mup

_m A

\%

u . .

.E.

l 2.

Accordingly..the license is amended by the addition of new paragraph 3.M as indicated in the attachment to this license amendment.

3.

This be must license amendrent fully implemented is effective as cescribed asAttachment.

in the of the date of its issuance an FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

/

,g - - i

(

George T'Knighto ' Director Project Directorate V 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 u-_._-__ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . . _ _ _

r.

l E, ,

- 3d -

3.M Chrela Y Thermal Shield Moniteriner PresFen The monitor neutron the noise / loose-parts detection system shall' be used to condition throughout cycle X or until of the reactor vessel thermal shield repair. Periodic monitoring of both

- neutron noise and loose-parts vibrations confirms that no long term.

unacceptable 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, 1990 to inspect the condition of the thezzal shield.

L <

(2)

During the criteria for first 7~ days of 2 854-power, interim acceptance neutron developed. noise / loose-parts. monitoring will be j

final acceptanceThesecriteria interim is criteria developed.will be utilized until the Final acceptance- criteria for monitoring will be established neutron noise / loose-parts evaluations for. 45 calendar days . at by' performing baseline' 2 85% power 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 2 85% power.

Adjustments to the acceptance criteria vill be made for cycle burnup and boron concentration changes throughout the cycle.

L (3) The neutron noise / loose parts monitoring system shall be OPERABLE in MODE 1 with:

a) At least two horizontal loose-parts detectors monitored for at least five (5) minutes 2 times per day; and, b) at least three (3) neutron noise inputs' monitored for at l

1 east for twenty cross (20) minutes once a week, and be analyzed coherence. power spectral density', including phase and (4) The shalldata provided by the loose parts / neutron noise monitor be analyzed established criteria.onceIf per week and compared with the criteria the data exceeds the acceptance a) Within 1 day the NRC 'will be informed of the exceedance. '

b) Within 14 days the conditions will be evaluated and a report provided to the NRC documenting future plans and actions.

Amendment No. 127

s 3e -

c) be demonstrated failed.The plant will be shutdown should the r (5) demonstrated OPERABLE in MODE 1 by performa 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)

CKANNEL TEST at least once par 31 days The surveillance requirements for neutron noisa monitor are covered the Powerby the Appendix Range A Technical Specification 41.1 for Neutron Flux.

(6)

With the neutron inoperabis for morenoisa/

than loose-parts 7 days detection instrumentation Report to the commission pursu,antlicensee shall submit a Special Specification 6.9.2 within the nextto Appendix A Tecnnical cause of the malfunction 3 days outlining the system to operabia status. and the plans for restoring the (7)

In the case indicated of asensors, on site seismic event of 0.25g or greater as initiated. a controlled Eefera operations are shut down shall be resumed, it occurred will be due demonstrated to that no thermal shield damage has the seismic avant.

(8) not applicable to this license condition.The provisions of ..

4 Amendment No. 127

- - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - -

___ ~ _ _ _ _

jm '

'{i f[ N ^^ UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

- * [$ WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 o i n(..O3J ..+

{

f L '

i SAFETY EVALUATION EY THE OFFICE.0F WUCLEAR REACTOR REG

, ]

RELATED TO. AMENDMENT.WO.127TO PROVISIONAL OPERATIN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON. COMPANY l SAN.01 EGO GAS. AND ' ELECTRIC . COMPANY l SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR. GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO..I '

DOCKET NO. 50-206 i

1.0 INTRODUCTION

j By letter cated February 17, 1989, as supplemented Natch 21 and 23, and May 3 and B, 1989, Southern California Edison Company (SCE or the licensee) requested a change to Provisional Operating License No. DPR-13 for operation in San Diego of San County, Onofre California.Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1, located 2.0 DISCUSSION In response to'an alert from the reactor vendor that reactor vessel l thermal shield festeners 65 another facility had been found degradec, SCE inspected the thermal shield for SONGS-1 on January 3-4, 1989. The thermal shield at San Onofre Unit 1 surrounds the reactor core barrel.

It is 21" thick and about 10 feet in height, and weighs 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 proviced by six flexures and 4 limiter keys.

Five of the six flexures have been known to have been broken since 1978.

The licensee described the inspection results and presented video tape recordings 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 confirmen that five of six thermal shield flexure fixtures are broken as detected in a previous inspection. Three out of thirty I thermal shield support block bolts are broken-bolts in support blocks at the 0* and 240' locntions.TheseNo areother the 7/8-inch signiti- top cant degradation was observed visually. Ultrasonic testir6g was not performed.

( ,Wm og:; 1,~ a .> v o7Xufni_G

The licensee has evaluated operation with the thermal shield in the conoition worst axpected, observed and considered worst credible, and worstthree cases which it characternes as:

conceivable.

The worst expected case involves the degradation of bolts at the third support block, and the sixth flexure remaining intact. The worst creoible case assumes that all support blocks degrade Lall 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 and methods used during the January 1989 inspecge tion. The licensee also proposes to use two monitoring methods while in operation to detect any further degradation of the thermal shield:

neutron noise monitoring and loose-parts monitoring. The licensee proposes to shut down if it determines through the monitoring program that the sixth flexure has failed.

3.0 EVALUATION The video tapes recorded during the visual examination demonstrate that the thermal shield is still in its original position at this time. The 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 assume that they have drifted inward from vibration and are broken.

Because the inspection was only visual it cannot be known if these are the only broken or cracked bolts. Licensee's vibration analysis concludes that the 240' and O' blocks are degraded and that the 300' block would prcbably 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 thermal shield motion has occurred.

if all of the bolts and dowel pins in a block were failed.No Support evidence block wear !w i

exists to thistocondition.

suggest that any individual support block assembly has progressed The vibration analysis predicts that a third support block will probably degrade during operation in cycle X, but that no damage will occur to the thermal shield. The analysis performed by the Ifcensee used a simplified i model consisting of beam elements and springc to represent linear and ]

rotational stiffnesses of the system. The staff reviewed the pertinent ]

information provided by the licensee and concluded that there are serious flaws in the methodology, modeling and in the evaluation of stresses which would result from the impactivs loads on the support blocks induced by the vibratory motion of the thermal shield. Because the analysis was found to be unacceptable by the staff, the license has been requested to

___--_ _ - - - - -- 1

t. .. .

3 ,

\

i perform a mid-cycle inspection and to improve the proposed monitoring program whereby any further degradation of the shield supporting elements personnel.

operating could be cuickly detected and appropriate action taken by -

At the meeting with the licensee on May 1,1989, the NRC staff presented its requirements fcr an inspection of the thermal shield at the mid-cycle outage monitoring. and changes to the proposed license conditions on thermal shield The licensee agreed with the staff position and confirmed '

this agreement in its letters to NRC dated May 3 and 8, 1989.

In evaluating the safety issues regarding the thermal shield the staff.

took under consideration tha 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 bottom coolant of core.

to-the the reactor vessel and therefore obstruct the flow of 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 (2 Failure of the all bolts at each support block (3 Shearing off the suppo-t blocks which hold the.

shield in the present position, and (4) Failure of the lower core radial supports The staff criteria require that the licensee provide an adequate neutron noise monitoring program.which will detect any further degradation of any of the above elements and that the after failure of the remaining flexure, plant thuswill be shutany precluding down imediately further i

deterioration of the reactcr internals. The staff believes that such an arrangement coupled with the mid-cycle inspection provides adequate  !

assurance of safety.

The noise signal from the ex-core power range neutron flux detectors will be recorded periodically and analyzed to monitor internal vibrations of the thermal shield.

Four accelerometers mounted on the reactor vessel flange will monitor 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 i

{

would allow a large beam-mode oscillation at a much lower frequency which would be detectable. The i occur, as discussed above. plant would be shut down for repairs should this The three bolts which were found 4 be broken will likely deift out all the way anc become loose parts at some point in cycle X. Then parts will most likely fall to the bottom of the pressure vessel bbwse 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 likely

___.__________-______2_ - _ - _ _ _ . _ - . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _

I

' i I

due to the reactor arrangement vessel flange. of the accelerometers which are mounted on the In the unlikely event that the loose parts 1

are lifted up against the flow distribution or core support plates, 1 no adverse impact is expected, and these impacts may be detectable since these locations communicate more directly with the accelero- {

meters.  !

(

}

The licensee and consultant (Westinghouse) have analyzed the changes in 'l reactor drop 11" coolant flow to the core barrel to the coresupports.

radial in the event the shield should tilt or- I The changes in flow and j flow distribution would are therefore acceptable. be minor and within the design parameters, and i We conclude that operation in cycle X as proposed is acceptable.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

?

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.21, 51.32, and 51.35, an environmental assessment  !

and finding of no significant impact have been prepared and published in the Federal Reaister on May 11 1989 (54 FR 20459). Accordingly, based upon the environmental assessme,nt, the Commission has determined that the issuance of this amendment will not have a significant effect on the d quality of the human environment. 1

3.0 CONCLUSION

l I

We ha've concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the 1 public will not be encangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) sut.h activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and (3) the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense ano security or to the health and safety of the public.

l Principal Contributors: R. Lipinski L. Lois I C. Tranmell M. Hum Cated: May 15, 1989 1

)

~

v -g 1

7. ., q

.f 7590-01 1

'1 UNITED STATE 5 NUCLEAR EEGULATORY COMMISSION

{

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON C0hPANY, ET AL. l DOCKET h0. 50-206 NOTICE OF ISSUANCE.0F /JtENDNENT *TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE Th'4 U.S Nuclear Regulatory Conraisr.on (Comission) has 1!,sured Amendm No.127to Provisional Operating License f6. EPR-13, issutsd to Southern Califo Edison Company and Sr.n Diego Gas ard Electric Coupany I,the licenriees), fo e

opr ration of the San Onofre Nucir.ar Gsacrating Station, Unit No,,1,-located in Ssi Diego County, California.

The arnendment was effective as of the date of. (

is.suance.

The amendment provides for e reactor vessel there.a1 shield nor,itering p gram and mid-cycle inspection untf1 thes thereal shield fasteners are repaired

{

during the fuel cycle XI refuelir9 tte 10-year ASME Insertice Inspection.

The application for the ace idnent, complies with the staMards' and requirements of the Atetuic Energy /sct of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commisrion's regulactons.

The Commission har, made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Cennission's regulations in 10 CF2 Chapter 1, which are set forth in the itt:rmse amendant.

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Anendment and Opportunity for flehring in connection with inis actica we.s published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on {

l March 2, 1989 (54 FR 8854). lio request for a hearing or petitions for leave to t intervene were eceived. f,uheqtte:nt to it suance of this notice, the licensees provided suppleosntal inferation by letters dated March 21 and 23 and May 3

{

and B, 1989. These letters prnvided additional infonnation and revised 1 I

c,umm)tments encompassed by the original notice.

w gau

^

IW ,

C ,

4 4 4

The Comission 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 May3and8,1989,(2) Amendment No.127to License No. DpR-13, -(3) the Comission's related Safety Evaluation and (4) the Commission'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, f

and at the General Library, University of California, P.O. 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, Div :sion of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special P.rojects.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 15 day of May,1989. I i

s FOR THE NUCLEAR REG'JLATORY COMMISSION I W /r Charles M. Tramell, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate V Division of Reactor Projects III, IV, V and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l

i

~

,. ENCLOSURE 3 o i

+

n asc q'o 4

~,, .

UNITED STATES

!h

. r,, g

(  ; , NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wAsmNGTON, D. C. 90555 X. .C>T j}l '

... May 16,1989 l 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 {

q

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 presented 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.

We also understand that there well may be other design deficiencies hereafter identified by these ongoing programs (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 conclusion was reached in coordination with the Region V Regional Administrator and is also based on your satisfactory response to NRC concerns, as documented in the meeting sumary and your written certification dated May 12, 1989 that all comitments made to the NRC for actions to be completed during the Cycle 10 refueling outage have in fact been completed.

Sincere 1y, i

' k Y COL _

omas E. Mttdef, fractor y L, -} Office of Nuclear Re or egulation Enclosure.

Meeting Summary cc w/ enclosure:

See next page -

~..o . .

. l

. Mr. Kenneth .P.' Baskin San Onofre Nuclear Generating

. Southern California Edison Company 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. 0. Box 4329 San Clemente, California 92672 Mayor City of San Clemente San Clemente, California 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 Comunission 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Cttek, California 94596 Mr. Paul Szalinski, Chief Radiological Health Branch State Department of Health Services 714 P Street, Office B1dg. #8 Sacramento, California 95814 -

(7) i

___ -_ __ _ _ - A