ML19294B103
| ML19294B103 | |
| 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 8002270133 | |
| Download: ML19294B103 (5) | |
Text
i GV f
) lJ
+* "s coq jo UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
3 e,( 3 o
W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 h
M A.j,#/
\\,,t February 11, 1980 Docket No. 50-312 Mr. J. J. Mattimoe Assistant General Manager and Chief Engineer Sacramento Municipal Utility District 6201 S Street P. O. Box 15830 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, h
Y' W
Robert W. Reid, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Operating Reactors
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Infomation cc w/ enclosure:
See next page 8002270IM i
o Sacramento Municipal Utility District ccw/ enclosure (s):
Christopher Ellison, Esq.
David S. Kaplan, Secretary and Dian Grueuich, Esqdommission General Counsel California Energy 6201 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.
20003 Sacramento, California 95814 Docketing and Service Section Business and Municipal Department U
N clea Re u o y Commission Sacramento City-County Library Washington, D.C.
20555 fl8 1 Street Sacramento, California 95814 Resident Inspector P. O. Box 48 Director, Technical Assessment Fair Oaks, California 95628 Divisien Office of Radiation Programs Dr. Richard F. Cole (AU-459)
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Panel Crystal Mall #2 U. S. Nuclear Re;olatory Commission Arlington, Virginia 20460 Washington, D.C.
- 55 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Mr. Frederick J. Shon e A
c SC INATOR el Fr sco alifornia 94111 Washin t 055 Mr. Robert B. Borsum Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq.
Babcock & Wilcox Chairman, Atomic Safety and
?!uclear Power Generation Division Licensing Board Panel Suite 420, 7735 Old Georgetown Road U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Lethesda, Maryland 20014 Washington, DC 20555 James S. Reed, Esq.
Thomas Caxter, Esq.
Michael H. Remy, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Reed, Samuel & Remy 1800 M Street, ?!N 717 K Street, Suite 405 Washington, D. C.
20030 Sacramento, California 95814 Herbe.t H. Brown, Esq.
Mr. Michael R. Eaton Lawrer ce Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Energy Issues Coordinator Hill, 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 s
t 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 tir. Richard D. Castro 2231 K Street Sacramento, California 95814 Mr. Gary Hursh, Esq.
520 Capital Mall Suite 700 Sacramento, California 95814 ce California Department of Health ATTN: Chief, Environmental Radiation Control Unit Radiological Health Section 714 P Street, Room 498 Sacramento, California 95814
o Enclosure SACRAfiENTO fiUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORf1ATIO 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 altered 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 analyze in a reload core then a first core. This potential problem has been addressed as question (1). An alternate approach is to carefully monitor 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 baten and maximum assembly burnup at end of cycles 4, 5 and 6.
9.
figert. 2.1-2 Identify the specific credi.s taken in modifying the power imbalance tent in cycle 4 from that used in cycle 3.
Provide a comparison of actual RPS imbalance limits, for cycles 3 and 4 which would include variations in burnup, control rod and APSR positions and xenon concentration.
.. 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 +100 ppm. Please state the review criteria.
- 11. Section 9.2.2 Temperature Reactivity Coefficient states an acceptance criteria of +0.4 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 rods will be measured. As stated in BAW-1477 "0conee 1 Cycle 4 Quandrant Flux Tilt" page 12, this test "has proven to be an indicator of core symmetry." Please indicate that the measurement 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 boron concentration comparison (measured vs predicted) at steady-state full power.
16.
Indicate your commitment to submit a physics startup test report within 45 days of completion of the tests.