ML072220365

Request for Additional Information on the Proposed Amendment Request for Steam Generator Tube Surveillance Program, Tube Repair (TAC Nos. MD2584 and MD2585)

ML072220365
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	08/16/2007
From:	Kalyanam N NRC/NRR/ADRO/DORL/LPLIV
To:	Rosenblum R Southern California Edison Co
Kalyanam N, NRR/DORL/LP4, 415-1480
References
TAC MD2584, TAC MD2585
Download: ML072220365 (4)

Text

August 16, 2007 Mr. Richard M. Rosenblum 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:

SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3 -

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT ON STEAM GENERATOR TUBE SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM, TUBE REPAIR (TAC NOS. MD2584 AND MD2585)

Dear Mr. Rosenblum:

By letter dated July 14, 2006 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML061990071), as supplemented by later dated June 28, 2007, Southern California Edison submitted an application to change the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, technical specifications (TS) related to steam generator tube integrity TS. The proposed amendment incorporates a description of the parent tube inspection limitation adjacent to the nickel-band portion of the lower sleeve joint and provides the bases for the structural and leakage integrity of the joint being ensured with the existing inspection of the parent tube adjacent to the nickel-band region.

After reviewing your request, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has determined that additional information is needed to complete the review. We discussed the enclosed request for additional information (RAI) with your staff by telephone and they agreed to provide a response to the RAI by the third week of September 2007.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-1480.

Sincerely,

/RA/

N. Kalyanam, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch IV Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362

Enclosure:

Request for Additional Information cc w/encl: See next page

ML072220365 *No major change from Staff provided RAI OFFICE NRR/LPL4/PM NRR/LPL4/LA NRR/DCI/CSGB* NRR/LPL4/BC NAME NKalyanam JBurkhardt AHiser THiltz DATE 8/14/07 8/14/07 7/30/07 8/16/07 San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3 cc:

Mr. Raymond W. Waldo, Vice President, Director, Radiologic Health Branch Nuclear Generation State Department of Health Services Southern California Edison Company P.O. Box 997414, MS 7610 San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Sacramento, CA 95899-7414 P.O. Box 128 San Clemente, CA 92674-0128 Resident Inspector San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Mr. Douglas K. Porter, Esquire c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Southern California Edison Company Post Office Box 4329 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue San Clemente, CA 92674 Rosemead, CA 91770 Mayor Dr. David Spath, Chief City of San Clemente Division of Drinking Water and 100 Avenida Presidio Environmental Management San Clemente, CA 92672 California Dept. of Health Services 850 Marina Parkway, Bldg P, 2nd Floor Mr. James T. Reilly Richmond, CA 94804 Southern California Edison Company San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Chairman, Board of Supervisors P.O. Box 128 County of San Diego San Clemente, CA 92674-0128 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 335 San Diego, CA 92101 Mr. James D. Boyd, Commissioner California Energy Commission Mark L. Parsons 1516 Ninth Street (MS 31)

Deputy City Attorney Sacramento, CA 95814 City of Riverside 3900 Main Street Brian Katz Riverside, CA 92522 Southern California Edison Company San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Mr. Gary L. Nolff P.O. Box 128 Assistant Director - Resources San Clemente, CA 92764-0128 City of Riverside 3900 Main Street, 4th Floor Mr. Steve Hsu Riverside, CA 92522 Department of Health Services Radiologic Health Branch Regional Administrator, Region IV MS 7610, P.O. Box 997414 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sacramento, CA 95899-7414 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, TX 76011-8064 Mr. A. Edward Scherer Southern California Edison Company Mr. Michael J. DeMarco San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station San Diego Gas & Electric Company P.O. Box 128 8315 Century Park Ct. CP21G San Clemente, CA 92674-0128 San Diego, CA 92123-1548 May 2007

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI)

REGARDING SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3 STEAM GENERATOR TUBE SURVEILLANCE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION AMENDMENT DOCKET NOS. 50-361 AND 50-362 The following questions are a continuation to those in our previous RAI letter dated May 17, 2007:

21. In your June 28, 2007, letter, you indicated (in your response to question 20), that the text in your July 14, 2006, letter (Enclosure 5) was discussing the leakage from two different sources: the tube-to-tubesheet joint and the tube-to-sleeve joint. Please clarify whether this is correct. If so, how was the leakage from the tube-to-sleeve joint distinguished from the leakage from the tube-to-tubesheet joint and which results in Table 6-1 apply to the tube-to-sleeve joint? In addition, please clarify the following:

a. The text on page 6-1 of your July 14, 2006, letter (Enclosure 5) indicates that samples 1, 2, 6, and 8 and all 7/8-inch samples essentially did not leak during room temperature testing. Assuming that leakage of 2.7 x 10-6 gallons per minute (gpm) is considered negligible (per your June 28, 2007, letter), please clarify whether sample 5 leaked under room temperature conditions.

b. You indicated that the leak rate from the room temperature specimens is bounded by 2.72 x 10-6 gpm. In this case, please clarify the leak rate for specimen 4 (3/4-inch tubing), which is reported in Table 6-1 as having leaked at 5.44 x 10-5 gpm.

22. In your June 28, 2007, letter, you indicated (in your response to question 1), that additional testing was judged not to be necessary to establish the integrity of the sleeve joint over the limited operating period until steam generator replacement. As a result, it appears (to the staff) that you may not have performed certain tests and analyses (e.g.,

load cycling tests) since the sleeves were not expected to be in service for an extended period of time. Given that it appears that you are relying, in part, on the sleeves not being installed for the licensed operating time of the facility, discuss your plans to place a limitation in your technical specifications that all sleeves will be removed from service by a specific date (e.g., December 2009 for Unit 2 and December 2010 for Unit 3) or after a specific period of time (i.e., all tubes with sleeves shall be plugged after the sleeve has been in service for x years). The specific date or time period should be chosen consistent with the results of your assessment. The staff recognizes that no sleeves are currently installed in Unit 3. Alternatively, provide the appropriate test results and analyses (i.e., those tests and analyses performed during initial licensing of the sleeves and affected by a shorter rolled joint) that support continued operation of the sleeves, with a shorter rolled joint length, for the licensed operating time of the facility.