ML20009C278
| ML20009C278 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 07/14/1981 |
| From: | Crews J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Mattimoe J SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT |
| References | |
| TAC-46692, NUDOCS 8107200428 | |
| Download: ML20009C278 (2) | |
Text
.
p o
w W
W A
1 o
y Docket No. 50-312 JUL 141981 Docket No. 50-312 co I
cbN y
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
/
//. I
[S-f f P. O. Box 15830 Sacramento, California 95813 Jg 171981w
'7 n
{ ""-Qp, Attention: Mr. John J. Mattimoe Assistant General Manager
'd, and Chief Engineer
,g Gentlemen:
N Thank you for your letter dated July 1,1981, informing us of the steps you have taken to correct the items which we brought to your attention in our letter dated June 6,1981. Your corrective actions with regard to measuring pump bearing hinperatures in accordance with ASME Section XI requirements will be verified during a future inspection.
With regard to veMfying the operability of the high pressure injection and makeup pump safety-related lube oil coolers, however, we question your response. Our basis for this is that we cannot conce at this time that the performance test conducted for LER 81-1F apared proper operation of the HPI system independent of the lube '
coolers. Our difficulty in this regard stems from the fact that, based on our under-standing, the test could only be performed at a flow rate equal to about 25 percent of the nominal accident flow rate. Accordingly, based on FSAR Fig. 6.2-2, the pump horsepower, and hence the heat input to the lube oil, was only about two-thirds of the Pminal accident value. Even with this reduced heat input, howyer, the lubo oil temperature reached its acceptance criterion value (2000F) within two hours and at that time was utill increasing slowly.
It appears, therefore, that under nominal accident flow conditions the lube all temperature criterion would have been exceeded more rapidly and by a greater margin. Thus, on the basis of available information, we cannot concur that the test assured operation of the pumps under accident conditions independent of the lube oil coolers.
With regard to the as-f.tund plant conditions, we have con:1uded that with 90 per':ent clogging of the lube oil cooler, and based on your test results, the affected pumps probably could have perfomed their safety function under accident conditions. This conclusion, however, assumes some limited lube oil cooling due to incomplete clogging of the lube oil coolers - which, of course, is much different than no cooling whatsoever.
[k/
8107200428 810714 PDR ADOCK 05000312 S
G PDR RV l RV o"'c r > R{
RV p',
$"=<>.Zwe zig, b, young,t 6
Craws,,,
. F$ /8 7
7 7/ /8
. //J/81
^ " >. 7/D/81
" " '
- 32"24 nac rosu.ns no comscu om OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
s Sacranento f!unicipal Utility District July 13, 1931 Since, as discussed above, we cannot yet conclude that the safety-related lube oil coolers are not necessary to assure operation of the high pressure injection and nakeup pumps under accident conditions, please respond within 30 days of the date of this letter with add'tlonal infonnation in support of your position or with a description of your conmitments and plear for periodically verifying the operability of these coolers.
Your cooperation with us f s appreciated.
Sinces 71v,
/s/
Danial F. Sternberg for J. L. Crews, Chief Recctor Ooerattuns Projects Branch Sent to DCS for Distribution Dist. by RV: RVPDR, State of CA (Hahn, Johnson) i p
4 E
-_. _.