ML19254F537
| ML19254F537 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 10/24/1979 |
| From: | Reid R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Mattimoe J SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT |
| References | |
| TAC-11288, NUDOCS 7911090586 | |
| Download: ML19254F537 (5) | |
Text
'
a v9s
/[
o UNITED STATES g
s, g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION yg WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 gg jj
'+[,)#
October 24, 1979 Docket No. 50-312 Mr. J. J. Mattimoe li 3
9 Assistant General Manager and Chief Engineer Sacramento Municipal Utility District 6201 S Street P. O. Box 15830 Sacramento, CA 95813
Dear Mr. Mattimoe:
RE: RANCHO SECO INSERVICE TESTING PROGRAM During the Inservice Inspection and Testing Working Session held with your staff on October 3 and 4,1979, we learned that certain valves in the Rancho Seco plant could only be partial-stroke tested periodically for the life of the plant. The NRC review group concluded that for these valves, additional infonnation was t..ecled to better evaluate the consequences of this limitation.
Therefore, answers to the questions of Enclosure 1 should be provided to us for the following valves:
RCS 001 BWS 003 CBS 021 DHS 003 RCS 002 BWS 004 CBS 022 DHS 004 CFS 001 CBS 007 CBS 027 HS 29015 CFS 0 2 CBS Olt CBS 028 HS 29016 During the working ression, your staff stated that answers to these questions could be fonnally provided to us by December 12, 1979, which is also the date by which the revised Inservice Testing Program could be submitted. At your acrliest opportunity, please confirm your commitment to provide answers to the questions of Enclosure 1 and to submit your revised Inservice Testing Program by December 12, 1979.
Sincerely, Robert W. Reid, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Operating Reactors
Enclosure:
1.
Additional Questions for the Noted Valves cc: w/ enclosure See next page 991/6*/05 %
- cramento liunicipal Utility District w/ enclosure (s):
Christopher Ellison, Esq.
- vid S. Kaplan, Secretary and Dian Grueuich, Esq.
General Counsel Crlifornia Energy Commission d201 S Street 1111 Howe Avenue P. O. Box 15830 Sacramento, California 95825 Sacramento, California 95813 Ms. Eleanor Schwartz Sacramento County California State Office Board of. Supervisors 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E., Rm. 201 827 7th Street, Room 424 Washington, D.C.
200'13 Sacramento, California 95814 Docketing and Service Secticri Business and Municipal Department S Nu le r Reg 5 ry Commission Sacramento City-County Library Washington, D.C.
20555 828 I Street Sacramento, California 95814 Michael L. Glaser, Esq.
20b36 Di c
Technical Assessment i
i ton Office of Radiation Programs Dr. Richard F. Cole U.
1ronnental Protection Agency e3 Crystal Mall #2 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Arlington, Virginia 20460 Washington, D.C.
20555 U. 5. Environnental Protection Agency Mr. Frederick J. Shon Region IX Office Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ATTN: EIS C0ORDINATOR Panel 215 Fremont Street U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission San Francisco, California 94111 Washington, D.C.
20555
'!r. Pabert B. Borsum Timothy V. A. Dillon, Esq.
Sabcock & Wilcox Suite 380 "cclear Power Generation Division 1850 K Street, N.W.
c ite 420, 7735 Old Georgetown Road Washington, D.C.
20006 u
Lethesda, Maryland 20014 James S. Reed, Esq.
Michael H. Remy, Esq.
Reed, Samuel & Remy 717 K Street, Suite 405 Sacramento, California 95814 He' bert H. Brown, Esq.
Mr. Michael R. Eaton r
Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Energy Issues Coordinator
-ill, Christopher and Phillips, P. C.
Sierra Club Legislative Office 1900 M St., NW 1107 9th St., Room 1020 Washington, D. C.
20036 Sacramento, CA 95814 D"
D "D v 304 325 Ee dk a
g n,T T g P Sacramento Municipal Utility gg M
S District cc w/ enclosure (s):
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and' Licensing Appeal Board Panel V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Richard D. Castro 2231 K Street Sacramento, California 95814 Mr. Gary Hursh, Esq.
520 Capital Mall Suite 700 Sacramento, Californic 95814 California Department of Health ATTN: Chief. Environmental Radiation Control Unit Radiological Health Section 714 P Street, Room 498 Sacramento, California 05814 1304 326 4
- ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE NOTE _0 VALVES 1.
Are these valves accessible for maintenance during power operations, cold shutdown, or refueling outages? If the answer is no, state the specific reasons used to support this determination.
2.
Basically describe any pre-operational tests performed on these valves
. and the systems containing these valves? Did these tests verify full or partial stroke exercising? State the specific reasons why these tests cannot be performed during power operation, cold shutdown, or refuel-ing outages? What dP* are.these valves designed to open? What is the postulated dP across these valves after an accident? Has there ever been an inadvertent safety system initiation that would have full or partial stroke exercised these valves? If yes, when and what, was the flowrate through these valves? Were any problems noted?
3.
What failures, partial failures, operational or pre-operational problems have been experienced with these valves or valves of this type in any other system at your plant? Provide all failure data.
4.
For each valve listed, what type valve is it (e.g. swing check, butterfly check)? Are the-e any special features designed into these valves that will aid in the prevettion of valve disc to hinge pin, or valve disc to valve body binding? If so, explain these features.
5 Provide a complete 'ist of all valve components and the materials they are made of.
6.
Are any of these valus exposed to air on either side?
7.
What type of chemicals and what maximum chemical concentration are these valves exposed to?
8.* What specific types of debris (foreign material) could each valve be exposed to?
~
9.
What is the design /lowrate through each valve for accident mitigation?
What h the dadgr flowrate through each pump or accumulator that could provide flow t'.Nugh these valves?
- 10. What temperature ranges are these valves exposed to during power operations, cold shutdowns and refueling outages?
3
} 3() /4 j2[
- dP= differential pressure
- .2-
- 11. Do these valves'have bolted or welded bonnets? Are these valves installed in the lines with bolted flanges or welded into place? Have any of these valves been removed for maintenance? If yes, were any problems di, covered?
Is the e a planned preventative maintenance program for each valve? If yes, what is the frequency of the maintenance inspection? Describe this procedure.
- 12. How many man-hours would be involved in removing, bench testing. and replacing each valve? What specific plant conditions would be required to be :ch test one valve at a *ime? State the specific technical reasons as to why these valves cannot ce bench tested during each cold shutdown or refueling outage. If a radiation hazard is present duringremoval of these valves. state the source and the mr/hr involved? What proof of full or partial stroke test would be required after you reinstall the valve into the:line ?
- 13. How long have~ these valves been installed in the system and not tested while being exposed to nomal operating and shutdown conditions? If these valves were removed for bench testing, was a determination made on the rate of foreign matter buildup, and is there a program for the periodic removal, inspection, and bench testing of these valves?
14 Provide manufacturing cross sectional drawings for each valve.
15.
Provide elevation diagrams for all sumps and piping runs that contain these valves.
16, What specific methods to full or partial stroke exercise these valves have been considered, and what specific technical basis was used to make the detemination that these tests are impractical?
- 17. How is the spent fuel pool and the volume above the reactor vessel head filled during refueling outages?
r m M u[mA h 1304 328
.y,