ML20236C918
| ML20236C918 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 10/22/1987 |
| From: | Kalman G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Andognini G SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8710270399 | |
| Download: ML20236C918 (4) | |
Text
-
p 4
00T 2 21987 -
v s,
Docket No.: 50-312 9 --'s,,
DISTRIBUTION j
UDocketl11e7ACRS(10) d[l~
NRC & L PDRs
' ' f ' e
PD#5 Plant.
Mr. G. Carl Andognini GHolahan
.[
Chief Executive Off,1cer, Nuclear JLee RanchoSeco'NuclehfGeneratingStation GKalman 14440 Twin Cities'Rotd RBevan Herald, California 95638-9799 OGC-Beth EJordan/JPartlow
Dear Mr. Andopnini:
By submittals cated February ' 3,1986 and May 14,1987, you requested i
v changes to the Rancho Seco Technical Specifications on containment isolation valves. Please provide within 60 < jays the information requested here so we may continue our review.
l
(..,
)
Original signed by l
George-Kalman, Project Manager i
ProjectDirectorateV
\\
Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects e'
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
7 1
Enclosure:
l i
Request for Additional Information cc: See next page r.
l l
l j,
,Q 1
o
(~
l t
(.
('
,r
,,( '
r
,l t
LRSP/PDV DRSE/PDV DRS. d DV Wevanhdf GKp) man GDK is ton I
. Afdg/87 10/s' /87 10/ "J/87 -
/
1 i
"a710270399 871022
~i' 9DR ADDCK 05000312 P
- (
l' b/
w I
,,9 r.
f
. ;j,
\\
s
.x s
>f
. f / g.[.
[
c.
c.
- q
- q
\\-
N; d
s, x
S
- Mr. G. CarlAUdceini
).
',s h
~
s, Chief ExecucWe Sfficer, $'qdhfA '
Rannho;Seco Nuclear Generating T StatitM Sacramento Pbnicipal Utf Qty District as %
g-s Y
'h,,'
y
)
)4 David 5.
pl Secretar[
bohn' Bartus.
Mr 4
and Generii' CodgN s
Sacramento Munictyi\\edility -
tMrvJoAnneScottj 3
j I'
District
\\s \\
Federal Energy Regolatory Commission.
6201 S Street 825 North CapitcA Stmet, N. E.
F. O. Box 15830
.g Y
, Washington, D.C.
20426 i
7\\
Sacramento, California 95bi3) -
\\
\\QJ-
\\'
Thomas A. Baxter, Csq.
.g x
Shaw, Pittman, Potts. 6 T r,owbric'ge v
s i,
2300 N Street, N.h 3 L '
Q,"?
g C
Washington, D.C.
'0037' 6 e
a i
/
)
W l,
x Mr. John V. Vin 1
l Actind Manager,guist ~is k $ !.
A \\g Nuclear L?r.ensing I
/
SacramentoMunicipal.UtiliQDistrict fj '
s RanchoSecoNuclearGe,4patingStation g
- q. -
s 1
'A 14440 Twin Cities Road I t
b i
Herald, California 95638-97,9_9 g
N j
Mr. Rober't B. Borslea l'
\\ ',
w --
BabcocW & Wilcox qt j
?
$q Nuclear Power Generation Division i
y(
17 g
1
\\
Suits 220, 7910 Wootwont Avenue t
l Bethesda, Mary)gd 1%s16 l
4 s
Resident Inspector / Rancho hyti$g, 3,p I 'Q i
i e
\\
c/c U. S. N. R. C. dd 4440 Twin Cities Rc
.y
)
{ i N
s g
l i
0-Herald, California 95638 y
c Regiotal Administrator, Region V
(\\'
.g U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
[
T N
1450 Maria LanrpSuite 210 i
Walnut Creek, Cd1fornft.9 94596 i
x.
Mr. Joseph 0. Wa db C'n et Radiologic.(1 Healh\\ Dr<och Qg
[
?
ys State DeMrunent df Health Sereices
- c 714 P Strdet, Office Building 48'
\\ lq',%,
v s.
1 e
Sacramento, California 95814 /<
4' 4
s Sacramento County
'd ' N M
Board of Supervisors y'
+q
\\
- +
827 7th Street, Room 424,'
p
Sacramento, California 95814'
'l
,~
a
- hc i
\\_ '
(h I
Ms. Helen Hubbard
\\
i P. O. Box 63 s
s Sunol, California 945P6f-Y Y-[ i
?
', ' '.o e
y-
<n
(
l
i
?
t.
ll a.
l, 1L 8
RANCHO SECO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE REGARDING CONTAINMENT ISOLATION VALVES: ' REQUEST FOR_ ADDITIONAL.INFORMATION~
1.-
In Ref. 1 SMUD proposed to :
(1) delete 4 reactor tuilding purge valves from T5 Table 3.6-1, p. 3-40; -(2) add 16 additional containment isolation l
valves to TS Table 3.6-1; -and (3) increasef the maximum closure time listed in Table 3.6-1 for 34 of the containment' isolation valves to 25 seconds. Ref.1 (Attachment 11, p. 5) stated that:
"The increase in
~
closure time.to 25 seconds of selected isolation' valves _has, by analysis, been determined to result in offsite doses which remain within 10 CFR 100.11 limits.
Identify' the " analysis" referred to-in the preceding-sentence, and submit a copy if SMUD has not-already submitted it.
2.-
Although the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR, Ch. '14) for Rancho Seco lists the radiological consequences for many accidents..it appears.that SMUD (Ref. 2, Attachment IV) has: considered the radiological impacts from-only the loss-of-coolant-accident (LOCA) during containment purge. For each ~of the' accidents listed in the FSAR, state whether the. radiological consequences of that accident will be increased by the proposed TS chang-es.
For those accidents whose radiological-consequences will not be increased by the proposed TS changes, briefly state the basis for SMUD's position that the consequences will not be increased.
For those' accidents whose radiological consequences will be increased, provide a revised accident analysis. The revised accident analyses should identify the impact,that each of the changes in Table 3.6-1 will have on the estimated doses.
If it is SMUD's position that the addition or deletion of a particular valve, or an increase in the closure time, clearly has a negligible impact and it is not necessary to reestimate the. doses for thet particular valve, then briefly state the basis for SMUD's position that the impact is negligible.
3.
Ref.1(Attachment 11,p.6)statesthat: " Calculational result: of the doses to the Low Population Zone (LPZ) and Exclusion Area Boundaty (EAB) due to the MHA are provided in Enclosure I."
Although we have informally obtained a copy of page.4 of Enclosure I, we have not received the entire..
We also note that the estimated doses in Enclosure I (p. 4) are different than the values in Ref. 2, Attachment IV, p. 4.
Provide a copy of Enclosure 1, and clarify the meaning of these values.
4.
The Branch Technical Position CSB-4 (Ref. 3, p. 6.2.4-15. Section B.I.f) states that:
" Purge system isolation valve closure times, including; instrumentation delays, should not exceed five seconds, to. facilitate compliance with 10 CFR 100 regarding radiological consequences." Although SMUD states that the proposed changes will not have any adverse. impacts on plant safety (e.g., see Ref. 2, Attachment I, p. 2), presumably not increasing the valve closure times will not have.any adverse impacts on plant safety. State why the containment. isolation valves at Rancho Seco should be allowed to have closure times much greater (i.e., up to 25 seconds) than is provided for-in the Branch Technical Position.
Provide a justification for increasing the maximum closure time from the present value in the TS to the proposed value for each valve or group of valves whose maximum closure time exceeds or will exceed 5 seconds.
l 1
l S.
SMUD states (see Ref. 1, p. 1) that their position is that."the mode'ing of the. release of radioactivity to the containment' environment need not be instantaneous, as would be assumed with the use of TID source terms during the first few minutes of a LOCA."- SMUD' referenced Section B.S.a of tho.
Branch Technical Position (Ref. 3).as supporting their position. However, as noted above, some of the proposed valve closure times exceed the guidance _ contained in Section B.1.f, and thus' the use of a TID source term is appropriate.
6.
In a telephone conversation on September 1, 1987, the staff indicated to the licensee that the deletion of the 4l purge valves from TS Table 3.6-1 was not' acceptable,'and the licensee agreed to put these valves back in l
the table but with a longer closure time. Provide justifications for the -
longer closure time for the 4 purge valves.
7.
The addition of 16 containment isolation valves to TS Table 3.6-1 is i
acceptable provided that all:of the valves' satisfy the applicable regula-tory requirements for containment. isolation valves._ In Reference 1.
(Attachment II, p. 4 and 5), the licensee indicated that the hydrogen monitor isolation valves, hydrogen recombiner isolation valves and reactor.
building hydrogen purge valves (HV-53617 HV-53618) met the requirements of Stanoard Review Plan 6.2.4.11.6.r,-and GDC 66 of~10 CFR 50, Appendix A.
The staff found that the GDC 66 was the wrong reference criterion.
It is not clear whether the reactor building hydrogen purge valves.(SFV-53615 and SFV-53616) meet the applicable requirements.- The -licensee indicated in a telephone conversation on September 1,1987 that GDC 66 was a typographical error, and the two valves- (SFV-53615 and SFV-53616) met the specified requirements of GDC 56.
Further, the licensee comitted to clarify this in a revised submittal. Provide the written clarification.
REFERENCES 1.
Letter from G. C. Andognini, SMUD, to F. J. Miraglia, NRC, dated May 14, 1987.
2.
Letter from R. J. Rodriguez, SMUD, to F. J. Miraglia, NRC,. dated February 28, 1986.
3.
Standard Review Plan, Chapter 6.2.4, Branch Technical Position CSB 6-4,
" Containment Purging During Normal Plant Operations," Rev. 2,. July 1981.
-l