ML15223A664
| ML15223A664 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 10/16/1980 |
| From: | Reid R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Parker W DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8011030704 | |
| Download: ML15223A664 (4) | |
Text
OCTOBER 16 60 NSIC RIedesco NCPRORB#4 RDg
'RReid E I L PDR NRR Rdg MFairtile TERA-3*
DEisenhut RIngram RPurple OELD Dockets Nos.
50-270 AEOD aud 50-287 ACRS-16.
JRoe IE--3 TNovak Gray File GLainas HOrnstein Mr. William 0. Parker, Jr.
Vice President - Steam Production
- _P.,
_EOprdan,. IF, Duke Power Company P. 0. Box 2178 j0.'hR.e R eg.n 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Jonstqn
Dear Mr. Parker:
We have reviewed the DPC Repotable Occurrence Report RO-269/80-23, dated August 5, 1980, that you submitted to the NC Office of Inspection and Enforcement Region II Office in Ati nta, Georgia.
The Reort described a reactivity anomoly that occurred at Oconee Unit 1 at 97.4 effective full power days of operation during cle 6.
This anomoly raises questions about the accuracy of core physics data used to calculate reactivity balances for Oconee 1. We find that we need addi tional information in order to complete our understanding of RO-269/80-23.
Kindly provide the information requested in the enclosure within 30 days of receipt of this letter.
Sincerely, original signed bY Robert W*
Robert W. RAd, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/enclosure:
See next page OFFICE
.ORB
- DL SU R N A M E DATE 8 0 10/1_
0_
NRC FORM 318 (9-76) NRCM 0240
- U.S.
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979-289-369
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 0X October 16, 1980 Dockets Nos. 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287 Mr. William 0. Parker, Jr.
Vice President - Steam Production Duke Power Company P. 0. Box 2178 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242
Dear Mr. Parker:
We have reviewed the DPC Reportable Occurrence Report RO-269/80-23, dated August 5, 1980, that you submitted to the NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement Region II Office in Atlanta, Georgia. The Report described a reactivity anomoly that occurred at Oconee Unit 1 at 97.4 effective full power days of operation during Cycle 6.
This anomoly raises questions about the accuracy of core physics data used to calculate reactivity balances for Oconee 1.. We find that we need addi tional information in order to complete our understanding of RO-269/80-23.
Kindly provide the information requested in the enclosure within 30 days of receipt of this letter.
Sincerely, obert W. Reid, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/enclosure:
See next page
Duke Power Company cc w/enclosure(s):
Mr. William L. Porter Duke Power Company P. 0. Box 2178
'422 South Church.Street Office of Intergovernmental Relations Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Oconee Public Library 201 South Spring Street Walhalla, South Carolina 29691 Honorable James M. Phinney County Supervisor of Oconee County Walhalla, South Carolina 29621 Director, Technical Assessment Division Office of Radiation Programs (AW-459)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Crystal Mall #2 Arlington, Virginia 20460 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IV Office ATTN: EIS COORDINATOR 345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Mr. Francis Jape U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. 0. Box 7 Seneca, South Carolina 29678 Mr. Robert B. Borsum Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Power Generation Division Suite 420, 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Manager, LIS NUS Corporation 2536 Countryside Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 33515 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
DeBevoise & Liberman 1200 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
Enclosure OCONEE UNIT 1 REACTIVITY ANOMOLY REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
- 1. Provide the predicted boron let down curve and the measurements of critical boron concentration for Cycle 6 for both zero and full power.
- 2. A component of the reactivity anomoly was the underprediction of the core excess reactivity which was based on the BOC measurements. Explain why there is a slope change in the excess reactivity curve. Include the origi nally predicted curve and the revised curve. Why was this not a problem in previous cycles of this or similar reactors?
- 3. Given the reactivity anomoly of 1.3% at hot zero power, what would the reactivity anomoly be at cold shutdown conditions? Justify your response.
- 4. Using the reactivity anomoly from Question 3, redo the analysis of the boron dilution accident from the drained down condition at approximately 1000 F.