ML20236G642

Forwards Response to 34 NRC Concerns Identified in 870611 Meeting in Bethesda,Md Re Tech Spec Evaluation Rept Concerning Proposed Amend 164.Proposed Changes Will Be Procedurally Implemented Prior to Plant Restart

ML20236G642
Person / Time
Site:	Rancho Seco
Issue date:	10/28/1987
From:	Firlit J SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
To:	Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
AGM-NPP-87-332, TAC-65256, NUDOCS 8711030188
Download: ML20236G642 (6)

Text

-- - - -

r..-

(. ,

SACRAMENT'O MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT 'O P. O. Box 15830, Sacramento C A 95852-1830,(916) 462-3211 ,1 AN ELECTRIC' SYSTEM SERVING.THE HEART OF CALIFORNIA ,

.AGM/NPP 87-332 .l DCT26J997'

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Frank J. Miraglia, Jr.

Associate Director for Projects Philips Bldg.-

7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, MD 20014 DOCKET 50-312 .i RANCHO SECO NUCLEAR GENERATING' STATION LICENSE N0. DPR-54 1 NRC' TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION EVALUATION REPORT - DISTRICT RESPONSE T0'34 CONCERNS

Dear Mr. Miraglia:

1 The District has completed reviewing the 34 concerns identified by the NRC in  ;

the meeting in Bethesda on June 11, 1987. Each of these 34 concerns is 1 summarized in the enclosure to this letter, and includes the applicable District response.

Proposed Amendment No.164 addresses the 17 near-term concerns, which were also identified for District resolution in the June 11, 1987 meeting. ,

Subsequent to the June 11, 1987 meeting, further items were added either by 1 NRC request, or' voluntarily by SMUD. The resulting 22 total issues addressed in Proposed Amendment No.164 were submitted on October'1,1987. '

The Technical Specification changes and additions presented in Proposed Amendment No.;164 will be procedurally implemented by the District prior to plant restart while awaiting NRC approval of the proposed amendment.

Please contact me if you have any questions. Members of your staff.with questions requiring additional information or clarification may contact Mr. Vern. Grayhek at (916) 452-3211, extension 4916. "

Sincerely,

. '$. 2 L N i . oseph F. Firlit J l

Assistant General Manager, l Nuclear Power Production l .

Enclosure p0L i cc: G. Kalman, NRC, Bethesda 1 A. D'Angelo, NRC, Rancho Seco t

)' j J. B. Martin, NRC, Walnut Creek 1 1

1Q 8711030108 871020 ~{

PDR ADOCK 0%y2 ,j P

1 j

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

.-. -_-_---__--_D

. 1, ENCLOSURE

-Rancho Seco Summary of Tech. Spec. NRC Concerns Response 6i

1) 3.1.1.1 a) No Action statement or a) USAR, Section 7.1.2.2.3F states:

time limit to insert new "There are no reactor trip trip! setting for.four RCPs. setpoint adjustments that must be made when reducing the number of operating RC pumps."

b) The 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> time limit b) The comment is unclear. Two RCP' for two RCP operations operation in limited to 24 ' hours .

is based on D .omplete unless further analysis indicates ECCS analysis, continued safe operation for a' longer period. The TS is in conformance with the USAR.

l

2) 3.1.1.2 A No Action statement; no Resolved in Proposed Amendment j referral to DHR; no No.152 (EFIC).- Spec. 3.1.1.2,

! quantitative limits or (7/31/87),

1 Action for OTSG level.

l 3) 3.3.1 A No Action requirement This comment was rescinded by the '!

l except TS 1.2.10 and NRC in'the SMUD/NRC meeting of' TS 3.3.2 allows 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> 6/11/87, equipment outage. Per-l mits remaining hot. g

4) 3.3.1 B No Action statement Action statement added for TS l except TS 1.2.10 and 3.3.1 in Proposed Amendment No.

3.3.2. Permits remaining 164, Spec. 3.3.1 (10/1/87).

hot.

5) 3.3.1 C No Action statement . Action statement added for TS except Spec 3.3.2. No 3.3.1 in Proposed Amendment No.

tolerances or upper limits 164, Spec. 3.3.1.

l on parameters. Permits remaining hot.

6) 3.3.2 Ambiguous regarding Second sentence of TS 3.3.2 acceptable level of defines a safety features system, degradation permitted, and with TS 3.3.3 and 3.3.5, e.g., "not degrade clearly defines what the

, safety features system requirements are.

A or B below the level of performance with the single subsystem removed from service." Also see TS 3.3.5 and STS 3.0.3. l l

I l

1 l

. ,m - - - - - - - - -

o 7'

~

gg mg

] '. q y ,$ .

{ ,

{

e.s y W iSummaryl.of=

.}

(RancholSeco! ,H l

4 ' Tech.sSpec.. NRC Concerns- '

,  ; Response: . -

. t i 17 ) L3.3.5-Between1 Amendment 61 and ETheLdeletion ofcTS-3.3.5 oc--

' 3- ,;75,'-TS 3.3.5 wasLap :

.;curredsin .NRC's issuance- of ' .

Ji arentlyedeleted. . iLicen-J L Amendment 76~, and was'acknowl -

g see indicatesiequivalenti ,. edged in NRCs letter,of 7/8/87: d wording"is?inf RSTS 3.3.2 Lwherebyithe.TS was reinstated.. S but 3.3.2/ permits Laddi-- i

~ tional 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> to initiate action.1 >

8) :3;5.2.2: No' time limitLor end point These commentsLare being [ resolved 4 provided for one;inoperablet by Proposed Amendment No.l164,s '

j rod. Power. reduction'doesi . Spec. 3.5.2.2'- ,

1 not have ! action

time limit. - ,

, O There are no-' provisions for

. exceeding LCO.. -

, ;3 y

9) 3.6.1 & 2 No Action statement pro- .

This comment ;is being. resolved by vided TS: Amendment: for Table ~ Proposed Amendment No..164, 3.6-1, . Containment ' Isolation ' Spec. 3.6.1..

j Valves pending. - l 1

10) 3.7.1 A, H Corresponds to TS'3.7.2 E . 'These comments are' being resolved j

&K F & G. Permits 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to- by Proposed Amendment No.1147,. )

restore inoperable equip - Spec.'3.7.1 (9/22/87).. j ment. NoL specific action 1 end point' or. time limit if' '

equipment not restored.

Permits 3/4.. inverters out-of-service indefinitely.

11) 3.7.1 B, I STS correlates with actions DThesefcomments. are.being resolved-in 3.7.2 A', B, D & H. -No'

~

8J by Proposed Amendment No.L147,.

time limits, end points, ~ Spec. 3.7.1.

etc., provided for LCO A, B, D and H. Requires.

. running DG continuously under certain load' con-ditions without a time limit.

12) 3.7.2 F STS correlates to action This comment is being. resolved in in 3.7.2.F. Permits out- Proposed Amendment No.164,1 Spec.

age of one battery for up :3.7.2.

to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, a 13)' 3.8.6 ' No Action statement or . The: applicable action statement surveillance requirement. -is to bejfound in TSj3;8.91 1*

3

. . - 2^-

L

[

Rancho Seco- Summary of Tech. Spec. NRC' Concerns Response 14)~ No Equiv. No equivalent RSTS of STS. Although reed switches'are not 3.1.3.3 on Control Rod . specifically addressed in the Position Indication reed RSTS, TS 3.5.2.5, 3.5.2.6, switch. 3.5.2.7,' Table 4.1-2 (Item 2), 4.7.1 and Bases pro-vide equivalency.-

15) No Equiv. No equivalent RSTS to'STS- Equivalency.is provided.by 3.1.3.5 requiring accept- TS 3.5.2.2 able rod drop time with Tavg. 5250F and all RCPs operating.

16) No Equiv. No equivalent RSTS- to STS TS 4.7.2.3 with TS 1.3, 3.1.3.8 requiring 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 0PERABLE, provides equivalency.

to HOT STANDBY _if.any, control rod is not pro-grammed properly.

17) No Equiv. No equivalent RSTS to STS Equivalency .is provided in .TS 3/4.2.2 for limiting 2.1 and in each Fuel: Cycle Reload  ;

nuclear heat flux hot Report. i channel ' factor.

18) No Equiv. No equivalent RSTS to STS Equivalency is provided in TS l 3/4.2.3 for limiting 2.1 and in each Fuel Cycle Reload j nuclear enthalpy rise hot Report. .!

channel factor. <

19) No Equiv. No equivalent RSTS LC0 to TS 3.5.6 and Tables '3.5.6-1. and STS 3.3.3.5 on Remote 4.1-1 (Items 84 through 90) add Shutdown Instrumentation. .the Emergency Shutdown Instru-mentation; submitted in Proposed Amendment No. 164.

20) No Equiv. No RSTS LC0 or Action Required action is provided by statement for COLD or HOT TS 3.0.3 incorporated in SHUTDOWN, or surveillance Proposed Amendment No. 164.

with respect to ECCS.

21) No Equiv. No LC0 or Action state- Incorporated .in Proposed ment in RSTS providing Amendment No.164, Spec, spec for overall inte- 3.1.~ 6.1. Additionally, grated leakage. equivalency is provided by '

l TS 1.'3, OPERABLE.

22) No Equiv. No LC0 or Action state- Incorporated in Proposed ment in RSTS concerning Amendment No.164 ' Spec.

Containment Air Locks. 3.6.1. Additionally, equivalency =

is provided by TS 1.3, OPERABLE.

Rancho Seco Summary of

~ Tech. Spec. NRC Concerns Response  !

23) No Equiv. No LC0 or Action state- Operating Procedures, reviewed ' -

ment in RSTS concerning and approved by 10CFR50.59 pro-limits on Containment. cess provides limitation on air temperature. Containment air temperature. )

Adding this level of detail  !

to TS is not considered necessary or appropriate,

, 24) No Equiv. No LC0 or Action state- Equivalency is provided in TS ment in RSTS concerning by Surveillance TS 4.4.2, Containment structural 1.3, OPERABLE, and 3.6,  !

integrity. Applicability.

25) No Equiv. No LC0 or Action state- Hydrogen Analyzers are shown in -

ment in RSTS concerning Table 3.5.5-1, Item 3, including Hydrogen Analyzers, an Action requirement.

26) No Equiv. No equivalent RSTS for TS 3.1.1.5 requires two one offsite circuit and coolant loops when temperature >

one Emergency Diesel is 2800F. TS 1.3, OPERABLE, Generator OPERABLE during requires both normal and shutdown, emergency sources of power.

27) No Equiv. No equivalent RSTS or The TS equivalents have been Action statement requir- submitted in Proposed Amendment

! ing minimum AC buses No. 147, Spec. 3.7.2H.

I OPERABLE.

l 28) No Equiv. No equivalent RSTS During COLD SHUTDOWN and  !

l requiring OPERABLE battery REFUELING,.two decay heat removal bank and charger in STS pumps must be OPERABLE. By .

{

1 Modes 5 and 6. definition. of OPERABLE, this  !

includes normal and emergency l l

power sources.  !

29) No Equiv. No equivalent RSTS A TS equivalent is included in f requiring 23 feet of water Proposed Amendment No.164, 3 above irradiated fuel Spec. 3.9.5 i assemblies in storage racks.

1

30) No Equiv. No equivalent RSTS LC0 A TS equivalent has been l for Hydrogen Purge System. submitted as Proposed l Amendment No.158, Hydrogen  !

Recombiner, Spec. 3.29.

l 31 ) 3.3.10.4 RSTS permits remaining hot The equivalent of STS  !

with degraded Containment 3.6.2.3 has been added to i cooling capability. TS 3.3.1 C in Proposed j Amendment No.164. )

l

_ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- a

l

._ t Rancho Seco Summary of.

Tech. Spec. NRC Concerns Response I,

32) 3.4.'1.4- RSTS provides no require- Except for the emergency supply ment for CST overall flow- from the South Folsom Canal, path operability, Action there is no normal alternate statement.or surveillance backup supply to the AFWs; requirement. the CST is the sole source.

The STS does not call for flowpath verification.

TS 4.8.4 does verify flowpath, .

and TS 1.3, OPERABLE, requires surveillance acceptability.

33) 3.6.5 No equivalent RSTS to The equivalent of STS-requirement to check 4.6.1.1 has been added to outer Containment iso- TS 4.4.1.2.3(f) in Proposed 1 l 1ation valves every 31 Amendment No. 164 days, and corresponding inner valves at least once per quarter.

34) No Equiv. No equivalent RSTS to Not applicable. . There are operability requirement no such devices in the of Containment penetration Rancho Seco design.

conductor overcurrent pro-tection devices.

i I

J l

. 5 -'

u