ML20049J828
| ML20049J828 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 03/17/1982 |
| From: | Mattimoe J SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT |
| To: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-2.K.2.16, TASK-TM TAC-48129, NUDOCS 8203290131 | |
| Download: ML20049J828 (2) | |
Text
,, ~
asuun SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT O 6201 S Street, Box 15830, Sacramento, California 95813; (916) 452-3211 March 17, 1982 N
g ff gGdb 3 e,hftee n gomittj]h
{
DIRECTOR OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION ATTENTION J0llN F STOLZ CllIEF 1**
T3 OPERATING REACTORS BRANCil 4 b
N U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
WASHINGTON D C 20555 DOCKET 50-312 RANC110 SECO NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNIT NO 1 TMI ACTION PLAN ITEM II.K.2.16 REACTOR COOLANT PUMP SEAL DAMAGE Your letter of January 19, 1982 requested information concerning reactor coolant pump seal injection flow. You referenced the District's letter of December 15, 1980; however, we still have no indication that you have considered our original submittal on this subject dated December 19, 1979.
Me feel that the information presented in this earlier letter is still valid and forms the basis for our responses below.
As discussed in our December 19, 1979 letter, seal leakage would not be excessive after one hour following a loss of component cooling water and seal injection water to the reactor coolant pumps.
Since it is very unlikely that seal injection flow would be lost with a loss of offsite power, and since Rancho Seco operating procedures exist to cover the reinitiation of seal injection flow, we feel that confirmatory experimentation to demon-strate seal integrity for two hours is unnecessary. Please note that our December 19, 1979 letter describes in detail, the expected behavior of the seals with a loss of both component cooling water and seal injection water.
The analysis performed at that time was very conservative.
We do not feel that automation of the cooling system is necessary to auto-matically maintain cooling following a loss of offsite power. We feel adequate time er.sts for operator actions and that our operators are adequately Instructed in this procedure.
We do not feel that seal failures will result from a loss of seal cooling following a loss of offsite power, but should that occur, the resulting leak rate would be within the bounds of existing loss of cooling accident analyses.
We therefore feel that reanalysis of FSAR Chapter 14 transients is not neces-i sary to prove acceptable results.
8h msns%-
s, P
AN ElECTRfC S' Y S T E M SERVING MORE THAN 600.000 IN THf HEART OF CAtif0RNiA L.
.m.
JollN F STOLZ March 17, 1982 Based on the above, we do not feel that any additional action is necessary to resolve item II.K.2.16 of NUREG 0737.
Le$i V
1 J.
sittimoe J,
Assistant General Manager and Chief Ent;ineer i
f 1