ML19290E641
| ML19290E641 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 02/11/1980 |
| From: | Reid R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Mattimoe J SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003140323 | |
| Download: ML19290E641 (5) | |
Text
+ m CORREspg aasog
,s n
/
fo, UNITED STATES y
3,., (, g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
^
g E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 February ll, 1980 ga Docket No. 50-312 4
//
Y $
SBO g
d
~
Mr. J. J. Mattimoe g)\\
Assistant General Manager and y
-4 Chief Engineer 6
/
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
,/
6201 S Street g
P. O. Box 15830 l
Sacramento, California 95813
Dear Mr. Mattimoe:
By letter dated October 3,1979, you requested amendment of the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station Technical Specifications to permit operation with the fuel loading planned for Cycle 4.
In order to continue our review of this matter, we have determined that additional information is needed. The specific information needed is provided in the enclosure.
In order to complete our review on a time scale consistent with your projec-ted schedule for operation in Cycle 4, you should provide fully responsive answers to the enclosed questions by February 15, 1980. To assist you in meeting this schedule, drafts of the enclosed questions were transmitted to you in two segments by facsimile on January 31 and February 8,1980.
Sincerely, GMJ Vf Od Robert W. Reid, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of.0perating Reactors
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Infomation cc w/ enclosure:
See next page 80031403 ag
r Sacramento Municipal Utility WTED COMCSrONDENCE District cc w/ enclosure (s):
Christopher Ellison, Esq.
David S. Kaplan, Secretary and Dian Grueuich, Esqdommission General Counsel California Energy 6201 S Street lill Howe Avenue P. O. Box 15830 Sacramento, California 95825 Sacramento, California ' 95813 Ms. Eleanor Schwartz Sacramento County California State Office 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E., Rm. 201 Board of Supervisors 827 7th Street, Room 424 Washington, D.C.
20003 Sacramento, Cali4 mia 95814 i
Docketing and Service Section
) Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Business and Municipal Department Sacramento City-County Library
/ Washington, D.C.
20555 acramen o California
$5814 d nt Inspector 0.
h$
Di ec Technical Assessment 0
s, alifornia 95628 Of u f Radiation Programs Dr. Richard F. Cole, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
$el Crystal Mall #2 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Arlington, Virginia 20460 Washington, D.C.
20555 U. S. Environmeatal Protection Agency Mr. Frederick J. Shone-to Region IX Office Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ATTN:
EIS COORDINATOR Panel 215 Fremont Street U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission San Francisco, California 94111 Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Robert B. Borsum Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq.
Babcock & Wilcox Chairman, Atomic Safety and f!aclear Power Generation Division Licensing Board Panel Suite 420, 7735 Old Georgetown Road U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
!.othesda, Maryland 20014 Washington, DC 20555 James S. Reed, Esq.
Thomas Baxter Esq.
Michael H. Remy, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Reed, Samuel & Remy 1800 M Street, ts 717 K Street, Suite 405 7ashington, D. C.
2003G Sacramento, California 95814 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
Mr. Michael R. Eaton Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Energy Issues Coordinator Hill, Christopher and Phillips, P. C.
Sierra Club Legislative Office 1900 M St., NW PN 1107 9th St., Room 1020 N
Sacramento, CA 95814 Washington, D. C.
20036
,v occKETEo i
USNRo FEB 151980 > {3
$ 35*f' oma B
D;di OIkN y
ganch r
'v t
o)
Sacramento Municipal Utility District cc w/ enclosure (s):
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 fir. Richard D. Castro 2231 K Street Sacramento, California 95814 Mr. Gary Hursh, Esq.
520 Capital Mall Suite 700 Sacramento, California 95814
<:o California Department of Health ATTN: Chief. Environmental Radiation Control Unit Radiological Health Section 714 P Street, Room 498 Sacramento, California 95814 e
s.s Enclosure SACRAMENTO MUdICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT - REQUEST F0D ADDITIONAL I 1.
The current power distribution reliability factor, RF, shown in BAW 10119 is based on comparisons of measured and predicted power distributions of cores utilizing conventional three batch, out-in, fuel management schemes.
An in-out-in fuel management scheme has been proposed for cycle 4.
Hence the current RF is not, without analyses, applicable to cycle 4.
To support the use of the current RF, confirmatory analyses should be proposed.
Specifically, a statistical test and acceptance criteria should be pro-posed which will test the hypothesis that Rancho Seco cycle 4 comparisons of measured and predicted power distributions are members of the family of comparisons which form the data base for the current reliability factor.
Such comparisons and statistical testing should be.made on at least a monthly interval and a running tally maintained throughout the cycle.
Results of these tests need not be reported if acceptance criteria are met.
2.
Please provide a description of your planned quality assurance program to insure that the proposed reprogramming of control rods to citered bank designations will be sucessfully performed.
3.
Define in more specific terms the APSR pull near EOC and how the stability and control of the core in this mode have been analyzed.
4.
Please provide the numerical values for the calculated stability index without APSRs if they differ from cycle 3 and the reasons for the variance.
5.
Please explain why the values for the Avg. fuel temperature at nominal LHR, F in Table 4-2, for batches 4 and 5 differ from those reported in the cycle 3 reload report.
6.
The nominal linear heat rate, KW/ft at 2772 MWt in Table 4-2 is different from what was listed on page 3-1.
Please revise.
7.
Extensive use of lumped burnable poison (LBP) to hold down excess reactivity and tailor power distributions, as has been proposed, is a potentially more difficult problem to analyzo in a reload core then a first core. This potential problem has been addressed as question (1). An alternate approach is to carefully meaitor reactivity anomolies. Please provide a detailed description of your reactivity anomoly check, renormalization procedures, if any, and review criteria.
8.
Please provide the predicted maximum batch and maximum assembly burnup at end of cycles 4, 5 and 6.
9.
Fi gJrt. 2.1.' Identify the specific credi a taken in modifying the power imbalance tent in cycle 4 from that used in cycle 3.
Provide a compar. son of actual RPS imbalance limits for cycles 3 and 4 which would include variations in brnup, control, rod and APSR positions and xenon concentration.
^'
..a
... The following seven items are related to startup testing.
- 10. Section 9.2.1 critical boron concentration states that the acceptance criteria for this test will be 1100 ppm. Please state the review criteria.
- 11. Section 9.2.2 Temperature Reactivity Coefficient states an acceptance criteria of 10.4 x 10-4 ak/k/*F. Please state the review criteria for this test.
- 12. Please state what further rod worth tests will be performed if the sum of the measured values for groups 5, 6 and 7 is more than 10% less than the predicted value for this sum.
- 13. Your description of the ejected control rod reactivity worth test does not state that four symmetric control mds will be measured. As stated in BAW-1477 "Oconee 1 Cycle 4 Quandrant Flux Tilt" page 12, this test "has proven to be an indicator of core symmetry." Please indicate that the measurerrent of ejected rod worth of four symmetric locations is part of your test program and state the review criteria.
- 14. The acceptance criteria stated in Section 9.3.1 Core Power Distribution Verification at -40,75 and 100% FP With Nominal Control Rod Position is accepta ble. Please state a review criteria for these tests. It is normally stated as a percentage which the RMS of the detector readings will not exceed.
- 15. Please state both acceptance and review criteria for the critical baron concentration comparison (measured vs predicted) at steady-state full power.
16.
Indicate your commitment to sutnit a physics startup test report within 45 days of completion of the tests.