ML19351D799

Forwards Requests for Addl Info Re Proposed Amend 70,flux to Flow Ratio Changes,In Response to

ML19351D799
Person / Time
Site:	Rancho Seco
Issue date:	11/07/1980
From:	Reid R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Mattimoe J SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
References
NUDOCS 8011200051
Download: ML19351D799 (4)

Text

-

h<v

1. pa neouq),

by UNITED STATES

[

' g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c

wAssincrow,o.c.20sss

\\ *.... p#

flovember 7,1980 55 Docket flo. 50-312 5?

< :3

.5 c,

G' Gi ;_'

f. !

lir. J. J. Mattimoe Us Assistant General Manager and

~E!s p"

-:'a Chief Engineer 5

5

~ ~4 Sacramento Municipal Utility District

,i

,. w 6201 S Street o

P. O. Box 15830 Sacramento, California 95813

SUBJECT:

PROPOSED A!1ENDMENT NO. 70; FLUX TO FLOW RATIO CHAilGES

Reference:

J. J. Mattimoe letter to R. W. Reid, dated August 11, 1980 The enclosure to this letter contains information that is relevant to our evaluation of the above subject Technical Specifications change requested by SMUD.

In order to complete our review, you are requested to provide us with clarifications or confinnations on each of the items, as appropriate.

Should you have any questions, please contact your NRC Project Manager.

Sincerely,

h. '

-c Robert W. Reid, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

Request for Additional Infonnation cc w/ enclosure:

See next page l

8011200OSI Q

+

Sacramento Municipal Utility District ccv/ enclosure (s):

David S. Kaplan, Secretary and Christopher Ellison, Esq.

General Counsel Dian Grueuich, Esq.

6201 S Street California Energy Comission P. O. Box 15830 1111 Howe Avenue Sacramento, California 95813 Sacramento, California 95825 i

Sacramento County Ms. Eleanor Schwartz Board of Supervisors California State Office 827 7th Street, Room 424 600 Pennsylvania, Avenue, S.E., Rm. 201 Sacramento, California 95814 Washington, D. C.

20003 Business and Municipal Department Docketing and Service Section Sacramento City-County Library Office of the Secretary 828 I Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission i

Sacramento, California 95814 Washington, D. C.

20555 Director, Criteria and Standards Resident Inspector Division P. O. Box 48 Office of Radiation Proorans (ANR-460)

Fair Oaks, California 95628 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D. C.

20460 Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D. C.

20555 Region IX Office i

ATTN:

EIS C0ORDINATOR Mr. Frederick J. Shon 215 Fremont Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Board San Francisco, California 94111 Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Mr. Robert B. Borsum Washington, D. C.

20555 Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Power Generation Division Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq.

Suite 420,'7735 Old Georgetown Road Chairman, Atomic Safety and Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Thomas Baxter, Esq.

Washington, D. C.

20555 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.

Mr. Michael R. Eaton Washington, D. C.

20036 Energy Issues Coordinator Sierra Club Legislative Office Herbert H. Brown, Esq.

1107 9th Street, Room 1020 Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.

Sacramento, California 95814 6

Hill, Christopher and Phillips, P.C.

1900 M Street, N.W.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D. C.

20036 Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Helen Hubbara Washington, D. C.

20555 P. O. Box 63 Sunol, California 94586

.. =

l Sacramento Municipal Utility District Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 d

California Department of liealth ATTN: Chief. Environmental 3

Radiation Control Unit Radiological Health Section 714 P Street, Room 498 Sacramento, California 95814 I

a

\\1

'l 4

-,w-n9 y

~

w.,

o.

Enclosure CONHRMATION AND CLARIFICATION OF PROPOSED AMEN 0 MENT NO. 70 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1.

The value of flow measurement uncertainty was indicated to be + 2.5%,

derived from studies of the Toledo prototype.

Confirm that the uncertainty figure of + 2.5% is applicable to the existing Rancho Seco pipina and instru-mentation configureation considering the recent RCS flow transmitter snubber modifications that increase instrument sensitivity.

~2.

iiimimum RCS flow required by Tech Specs is 387,600 gpm.

If your flow Instrumentttion indicated 387,600 gpm flow, is actual flow 387 600 or. conceivably 2.' sir ~ess? YaYuaT 'f16ifis cdndeivibly 2.~5f Iess, ppm.

how do you ensure that the Tech Spec limit is not violated?

3.

a)Confim that the original F3AR analysis and the original Cycle 4 analysis that concluded the DNBR margin was 10.2% was based upon a 100% design flow of 369,600 gpm.

b) Confirm that the anal'ysis in support of the requested P/F - 1.08 Tech Spac change used the minimum flew value of 387,710 gpm (or 387,600 gpm) to deter-mine that the new DNBR margin is >10%.

4.

Confim that the DNBR margin of >10% from 3b above exists for the following flow transients:

{

a) four pump coastdown b) locked RCP rotor If the DNBR margin of >10% from 3b above does not exist for the locked RCP rotor transient, what is the DNBR margin for the transient?

O

.