ML19319D831

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Insp Rept 50-312/74-08.Directorate of Licensing Should Review Hypothetical Control Rod Ejection Accident & Consider Addl Tech Spec to Prohibit Critical Reactor Operation W/Rod Group 5 Withdrawn Less than 50% from Core
ML19319D831
Person / Time
Site: Rancho Seco
Issue date: 10/16/1974
From: Spencer G
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To: Thornburg H
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML19319D832 List:
References
NUDOCS 8003250821
Download: ML19319D831 (2)


See also: IR 05000312/1974008

Text

-

a.

'

._ _._

.

j

'

_

._

.

...

O'

.

.

jeH 1

UMTED STATES

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

~

g

. 4,

oiREcroRArc OF REGgATORY CPERATIONS

,

,

qv

555::5h

=

ocT 161974

.

H. D. Thornburg, Chief, Field Support and Enforcement Branch

Directorate of Regulatory Operations, Headquarters

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT

RANCHO SECO

DOCKET N0. 50-312

The attached report by our field inspector of an inspection at the

subject facility on September 15,16, 24 and 25,1974 is forwarded

for action.

Q

The discrepancy between the predicted and measured worth of a control

I ,)

rod raises some questions concerning the validity of certain assumptions

used in the analysis of the hypothetical rod ejection accident in the

'

FSAR (Section 14.2.2.4); the adequacy of the Technical Specifications

g

relative to control rod grouping and operation; and possible generic

>

implications concerning these matters as they relate to other 88W

plants. We feel that the hypothetical control rod ejection accident

i

should be reviewed by the Directorate of Licensing in light of the

'

greater than predicted worth of the Rancho Seco control rods and that

Licensing should also consider the possible need for an additional

Technical Specification to prohibit critical operation of the reactor

[

with rod group 5 less than 50% withdrawn from the core. Some reasons

for our concern are the following.

U

The FSAR assumes that the severity of a rod ejection accident is

inherently limited because the amount of reactivity available in the form

of control rod worth is relatively small. A detailed analysis was per-

4

formed at rated power and zero power for rod worths from 0.2 to 0.7%

!

i

delta K/K. A maximum rod worth of 0.65% delta K/K at rated power has

!

been considered as a limiting value to demonstrate the inherent ability

of the system to safely _ terminate the postulated transient. Furthermore,

':

it was concluded that an ejected rod worth greater than 1.52% delta K/K

ji

would be required to cause rupture of the pressure vessel, whereas the

'

maximum rod worths used in the analysis were about a factor of two less

!

than 1.52% (Table 14.2-8).

r

v

,

i

.

8003 250

'

.

p.

.w

=

-

- . - - . . .

- -

_

,

-

,

,

--

--

. . . . -

,

'

.

..'

..'

-

v

t

001 it C4

)

-

2-

H. D. Thornburg

I

-

'

!

.

Results of the measurements during the pseudo rod ejection test show

!

that the worth of a single control rod with specified boration and rod

,

pattern conditions was considerably greater than had been predicted.

,

In our opinion, this considerably increases the importance of reliance

. ,

-

on administrative controls for rod withdrawal operations to avoid

Although the Technical

potentially unsafe operating conditions.

'

Specifications (3.5.2.3) do provide that "the worth of a single inserted

control rod shall not exceed 0.65% delta K/K at rated power or 1.0%

i

delta K/K at hot zero power," we do feel that~an additional Technical

d

Specification requirement is needed to specifica1.ly prohibit critical

il

We feel that such a

operation with rod group 5 less than 50% withdrawn.

specification is necessary to reinforce existing administrative controls

which implement the Technical Specifications requirement not to exceed

i

the 0.65% limit for an inserted control rod. This is particularly so

i

since some of the information available to the operator in the current

l

Technical Specifications could be misleading to the operator in that

I

Figuie 3.5.2-1 could be construed to allow operation of the reactor

'

'

with rod group 5 fully inserted.

i

h.

l

1

G. S. Spencer, Chief

!

Reactor Construction and

!

Operations Branch

!

Enclosure:

,

R0 Inspection Report

.;

'

No. 50-312/74-08 (21)

l

,

cc w/ enc 1.

R0:HQ (5)

ll

1;

I

.i'

f

n

~

m

.

n.

w

.

-

--v

--

-+n