ML19316A662
| ML19316A662 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1972 |
| From: | Peltier I US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Deyoung R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001130212 | |
| Download: ML19316A662 (4) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _.__
- i UNITED STATES s
N' N,/ _
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
-l de -
l wasmuc.ros. o.c. aos4s Y'
NOV 2 01972 Docket Nos. 50-270 and 50-287 R. C. DeYoung, Assistant Director for Pressurized Water Reactors, Licensing THRU:
A. Schwencer, Chief, Pressurized Water Reactors Branch No. 4, L L
MEETING WITH DUKE PO'JER COMPANY, BABCOCK AND WILCOX - OCONEE 2/3 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS, QUADRANT TILT, ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS AND INDUSTRIAL SECURITY - OCTOBER 17, 1972 Enclosed is a sucesry of the meeting held with Duke Power Company I
and Babcock & Wilcox on October 17, 1972. An attendance list is also enclosed.
n
- 1. A. Peltier, Project Manager Pressurized Water Reactors Branch No. 4 Directorate of Licensing
Enclosures:
1.
Meeting Summary 2.
Attendance List cc w/encle:
AEC PDR M. Dunenfeld R. S. Boyd C. R. Van Niel D. Skovholt R. Clark D. Knuth R. M. Bernero R. Maccary M. Chatterton R. Tedesco C. W. Cage H. Denton PWR Branch Chiefs R. W. Klecker M. Rosen RO (3)
H. Schierling R. Pollard 4 0 0 3 1,3 73 A
a ENCLOSURE 1 NEETING WITH DUKE POWER COMPANY, BABCOCK AND WILCOX - OCONEE 2/3_
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS, QUADRANT TILT, ENVIRONMEhTAL TECHNICAL _
SPECIFICATIONS AND INDUSTRIAL SECURITY
SUMMARY
Quadrant Tilt Issue B&W made a presentation in support of its contention that during normal equilibrium operation at 2568 MWt the maximum expected linear heat rate is 14.24 kw/ft. This provides a 22% margin relative to the ECCS criteria limitation of 17.4 kw/ft. The 17.4 kw/f t limitation is for the original Unit 1 core of mixed pressurized and unpressurized fuel. For all pressurized fuel the limit is 18.15 kw/ft based on ECCS criteria.
l EI and CS personnelneed assurance that B&W has sufficient control over the peaking factors under all conditions of operation to guarantee the 22% margin. Further technical discussions will be held af ter EI and CS have reviewed the B&W data presented and B&W has provided information on the nuclear peaking factors and thermal hydraulic factors used in establishing the margin. This information will be provided in the near future After this exchange we will outline the necessary steps to be taken to resolve the matter and to translate the resolution into Technical Specification limits.
Technical Specifications Core Physics - A number of questions relating to core physics'in the section on Safety Limits and Limiting Safety System Settings were raised by IE and CS personnel. Duke committed to correcting a typo in specification 3.5.2.2a to providing that rod safety groups be withdrawn before going critical or approaching criticality in specification 3.5.2.5 and to providing the hot channel factors in specification 3.5.2.4.
Deferred items will be reconsidered by Duke and B&W.
Administrative Controls - In this area Duke committed to making minor editorial changes and corrections. Duke was told that our position stated in the August 15, 1972 letter to Duke on crew size is unchanged.
Duke requested an opportunity to review our position and proposed wording for specification 6.1.2.2 dealing with the General Office Review Committee and based upon ANS 3.2.
The request was granted.
Duke requested an opportunity to review our position and proposed wording for specification 6.1.1.7c dealing with the SRO incharge of fuel loading.
The request was granted.
m
Electrical _ - In this area Duke committed to making many minor editorial However, in substantive matters Duke would not changes and corrections.
commit to:
Cold startup will not be permitted without two hydro units and the 1.
underground feeder being available.
An adjacent Nucicar Unit cannot be a substitute for a redundant onsite power source until such time as it has been demonstrated to 2.
be reliable under conditions such as load rejection etc.
The Lee Station gas turbine is not an adequate power source for the Therefore restart 3.
purpose of restart with no hydros available.
from hot conditons will not be permitted while both hydro units I
are unavailable.
The We agreed to reconsider item 3 under certain restrictive conditions.
applicant will provide for our review a description of those specific are unavailable.
conditions under which restart with both hydro unitt-discussed with the intent Other - Other Technical Specification items were to improve wording and to make minor changes and corrections.
Environmental Technical Specifications - Environmental Projects provided Duke with a draf t of the Appendix B to the license for its review and A target date for finalizing the Appendix B was set for December 15, Duke will respond by phone to the draft and a decision regarding comment.
1972.
a meeting on this subject will be made at a future date.
Industrial Security - Duke informed us that its consultant (Wackenhut) has completed its survey of the Oconee Plant and Site and will propose an Industrial Security Plan using Safety Guide 17, ANS 3.3 and the "33 Criteria" as a guide by November 6, 1972. Duke plans to submit its final plan to us by November 17, 1972. Duke has received proposals on hardware and equipment necessary to implement a plan but will not Duke was asked to notify us as purchase until our review is complete.soon as an estimate for reaso y-j
-=
ENCLOSURE 2_
ATTE1 E !CE LIST _
o T
J
( 1 t, -
e DUKE POWER COMPANY I
f i
i.
G. W. Cage I
J. E. Smith P. H. Barton K. S. Canady W. O. Parker R. J. Ansell B. M. Rice I
{
BABCOCK & WILCOX i
R. V. Straub R. N. Edwards R. R. Steinke J. R. Lojek fl J. S. Tulenko W. T. Brunson AEC i
R. M. Bernero R. F. Warnick M. Dunenfeld i
M. Chatterton J. H. Sniezek K. V. Seyfrit I. A. Peltier A. Schwencer R. Pollard
?
R. Clark C. R. Van Niel 1
1 l
.