ML20134A359

Revised Application for Amend 107 to License DPR-54,changing Tech Specs to Define Operability & Surveillance Requirements for Auxiliary Feedwater Sys

ML20134A359
Person / Time
Site:	Rancho Seco
Issue date:	10/30/1985
From:	Reinaldo Rodriguez SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
To:	Thompson H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20134A361	List: ML20134A359 ML20134A406
References
RJR-85-456, TAC-61487, TAC-61987, NUDOCS 8511040367
Download: ML20134A359 (4)

Text

. .

i.

"l$= SMUDSACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT O 62o1 S street, P.O. Box 15830. Sacramento CA 95852-1830,(916) 452-3211 AN ELECTRIC SYSTEM SERVING THE HEART OF CALIFORNIA RJR 85-456 October 30, 1985 DIRECTOR OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION ATTENTION HUGH L THOMPSON JR DIRECTOR DIVISION OF LICENSING V S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COVNISSION WASHINGTON DC 20555 DOCKET N0. 50-312 LICENSE N0. OPR-54 PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 107, REPLACEMENT By letter dated August 16, 1985, the District submitted to the Commission Proposed Amendment No. 107. This proposed amendment revises the technical specifications defining the oper ability and surveillance requirements for the auxiliary feedwater system.

Per the request of Syd Miner, Rancho Seco's Project Manager, the District is resubmitting Proposed Anendment No. 107. This submittal includes specific documentation related to the mechanical and I&C portions of the AFW flow in-dication system. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a) of the regulations, we have pro-vided a copy of this letter, the proposed change in technical specifications, and our analysis of significant hazards considerations to Joseph 0. Ward, the designated representative of the State of California.

According to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.92, this Proposed Amendment No. 107 has been evaluated by a No Significant Hazards Consideration in Attachment 1.

Attachment Il is a description of the proposed changes to Proposed Amendment No. 107.

Since this is a replacement to Proposed Amendment No. 107, no additional license fees are required.

u have any questions concerning this proposal, please contact Mr. Ron bo a an ho Seco Nuclear Generating Station.

Q, R. J. O IG EZ \ 8511040367 851030 PDR ADOCK 05000312 ASSISTANT GENERAL MAffAGER, p PDR NUCLEAR Enclosu"es 4 00 e (

Subscribedgndsworntobefore this 3o day of , 1985. ommunm=rnemammema-mmm.

l <*y4 soranyPATRICIA K. GEISLER !

g rtr,uc--car.u tmu li recu u. orrice. is Hotary pud l1C /

" W.P[h M SACBMll:NTO COUNTY i

6 My Coramiss'on Expires February 16, 1988 ; .-

emanmanawanamumuumummunaunace RANCHO SECO NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION U 14440 Twin Cities Road, Herald, CA 95638-9799;(209) 333 2935

I w

ATTACl#ENT I SAFETY ANALYSIS Proposed Amendment No.107 involves changes to Sections 3.4 and 4.8 of Rancho Seco Technical Specifications. An itemized description to the changes is in-cluded at Attachment II. Based upon the nature of the change, the list of revisions can be~ divided into three groups as follows:

Group.1 - Changes 2, 6, 9 Group 2 - Changes 1, 3, 4, 5 Group 3 - Changes 7, 8, 10 Group 1 changes revise _the AFW pump flow acceptance criteria based upon a B&W letter dated flay 16, 1979. The B&W analysis determined that 760 gpm of AFW flow at 120 F is adeqcate to remove decay heat and RCP heat. The NRC concurred w % the B&W analysis in a letter dated April 7, 1983.

Grohp 2 changes are the result of a new DBA being used to evaluate AFW system performance. This new DBA is reviewed in the NRC letter of April 7, 1983.

Previously,-a complete loss of unit AC power accident was used as the DBA.

However, selection of this scenario does not account for a more demanding instance where the reactor coolant pumps could be running. Therefore, the AFW system would.have to remove this additional heat input contribution. An analy-sis of this DBA is performed in B&W Document 32-1141727-00 which is included as Attachment'III.

-Group 3 consists of three (3) unrelated changes to provide additional clarifica-tion.

Change 7 removes the requirement for AFW pump flow to be measured using the change in condensate level over a finite time period. The District is currently ^

installing a new auxiliary feedwater flow rate measuring / indication system to meet the requirements of NUREG-0737, Item II.E.1.2.2. This system is intended to become the primary means of measuring AFW flow. Technical specifications do not normally prescribe, nor should they, the exact test method to be used in conducting a required surveillance but rather allow the licensee to determine the test method based upon technical adequacy. Change 7, then allows the flexibility to use the new flow rate system as well as any other acceptable method as the circumstances may determine. Attachment IV contains copies of ECNs No. A-3094 and A-3622 which describe the mechanical and I&C portions of the new system.

Change 8 removes the phrase, "once per 18 months during a shutdown" and replaces it with "once per refueling interval."

Change 10 adds a paragraph to the Bases in order to clarify the existing AFW pump testing method.

Group 3 changes are purely administrative changes to technical specifications in order to achieve consistency, supply additional clarification, or provide a change in nomenclature.

Group 1 and Group 2 changes meet the requirements of the Standard Review Plan, Section 10.4.9.I, Items 14 and 18 respectively.

L

F

' ' \ :e

.  ?

,.o

~

-N0 SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS DETERMINATION This proposed amendment to the technical specifications consists of changes that are editorial'in nature along with changes that are clearly within the acceptance' criteria specified in the Standard Review Plan. Therefore, opera-tion of Rancho Seco in accordance with this amendment:

1. Does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated,

2. does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any_ accident previously evaluated, and

3. does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

Accordingly, significant safety hazards are not associated with this amendment.

f L

~ '

.- ,f .

h '

ATTACHMENT II Description of Proposed Changes .

1. Page 3-23, Specification 3.4.1.1; The statement that minimum feedwater flow requirements are based on a decay heat of 41 percent full reactor power has been removed.

2. Page 3-23, Specification 3.4.1.1; The requirement for providing a minimum anount of feedwater flow at a particular temperature has been simplified.

A minimum feedwater' flow requirement has been established for all cases where feedwater temperature is below 120*F.

3. Page 3-24, 3rd Paragraph of the Bases; The first two sentences have been replaced by an updated analysis bases statement.

4. Page 3-24, 4th Paragraph of the Bases; This paragraph has been changed to -

account for a new Design Bases Accident.

5. Page 3-24, References; FSAR paragraph 14.1.2.8.4 has been deleted because it refers to an outdated DBA.

6. Page 4-39, Specification 4.8.2; Acceptance Criteria for minimum AFW flow

' has been cnanged to 760 gpm. - .

7. Page 4-39, Specification 4.8.1; The statement requiring that pump flow rates be determined from the difference in condensate tank level has bee'n removed. .

8. Ja P e 4-39, Specification 4.8.2; The statement once per 18 months during a shutov.vn has been changed to once per refueling interval.

9. Page 4-39a, 3rd Paragraph of the Bases; Minimum acceptable AFW pump flow requirements have been revised to 760 gpm.

10. Page 4-39a, Last Paragraph of the Bases; This paragraph has been added in order to clarify tne existing AFW pump testing method. '

-,- -,