ML19317D607
| ML19317D607 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 06/04/1973 |
| From: | Murphy C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Thornburg H US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317D586 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912060847 | |
| Download: ML19317D607 (2) | |
See also: IR 05000269/1973004
Text
.
g;D
m
-
.
.
~
.
g
UNITED STATES
g 6 j%
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
g
l !%e.
)-
DIRECTCRATE OF REGULATCRY CPERATICNS
/J
{~
.
2% RE AC HT REE ST R E ET, NCRT HWEST
acciou u - suit e eis
,
A T L. A N T 4. G E ORG I A 30303
JUN 4
197 3
,
H. D. Thornburg, Chief, Field Support and Enforcement Branch, Headquarters
.
DUKE POWER COMPANY (OCONEE 1), DOCKET NO. 50-269, LICENSE NO. DPR-38 -
REQUEST TO DELETE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION - REPORT NO. 50-269/73-4
This memorandum confirms my telecon with R. Paulus on May 31, 1973,
relating to the Duke Power Company request to delete information they
considered to be proprietary from the, subject report. Additional
information received by Region II subsequent to the telecon is also
included.
The information considered by Duke to be proprietary relates to the
measured and predicted values of boron in the reactor coolant system
with the reactor critical and at shutdown.
They also consider the
measured and predicted values of reactor coolant flow to be proprie-
tary. The Duke letter requested the deletion on the basis that dis-
closure to the public might jeopardize B&W's competitive position.
The predicted values of these parameters are in the FSAR, however,
and the measured values were obtained in tests designed to confirm
the predicted values.
The Princ4. pal Inspector contacted DPC on May 31, 1973, and again on
June 1, 1973, to obtain additional information, since the effect of
publicizing the information on B&W's competitive position was not
apparent. The following information was received during these con-
versations with J. E. Smith, Plant Superintendent, K. S. Canady,
DPC Staff Nuclear Engineer, and R. Straub, B&W representative:
1.
DPC and B&W were concerned about releasing the boron concentra-
tion values because the measured values were found to have been
in error (2.4% or 30-35 ppm in the 1300 to 1400 ppm range). This
error was caused by using an overaged reagent when titrating the
Smith also advised the Principal Inspector that errors had
been made in determining boron concentrations during the period
April 21-24, 1973. The errors were caused by not following pro-
cedures in preparing a batch of. reagent (NaOH) that was used in
analyzing for boron.
Transmitted Via Facsimile
614/73 - 3:55
gg
5912060 Q
-
.
.
^
.
3
'
,
,.
'
.
-
.
H. D. Thornburg
-2-
g{
'M
2.
B5W stated that they were concerned that knowledgable persons
could analyze the measured flow values together with other
information contained in the FSAR and derive basic design
data. The measured values of flow, however, indicate that
B&W may have been in error.
(The coolant flow rate, as measured during hot functional tests,
appeared to be higher than the calculated values, but since the
accuracy of the flow measuring system had not been determined,'
this was not confirmed at the time.
This discrepancy had been
carried as an unresolved item until the actual flow rate could
be determined by heat balance.)
Smith stated during the telecon on June 1, 1973, that the
acceptance criteria for the power ascension tests had been
rewritten. The new criteria vill require th t the flow rate
9
be between 102.3% and 110.8% of the 131 x 100 lbs/ hour vessel
design flow given in the FSAR. He further stated that if the
new acceptance criteria is not met, then Oconee 1 will be re-
stricted to 3 pump operation until the significance of the varia-
tion from design can be evaluated and corrective actions can be
taken if required.
The flow rate of 150.8 x 106 lbs/ hour, as
measured in the tests, would not appear to meet the new criteria.
Based upon the information provided by Luke and B&W, Region II does
not concur that the information should be considered proprietary.
Further, Region II considers that both events meet the Technical
Specification definition for Unusual Events and has requested that
Duke consider reporting them as specified in the Technical Specifi-
cations. Duke has not as yet agreed that they are reportable.
Region II plans to followup on these occurrences during he next
inspection which is planned for the week of June 4, 1973. Further
actions will be based upon information received at that time.
It is my understanding that Paulus will take appropriate action to
determine whether Duke's request for deletion of the data as proprie-
tary information is to be allowed.
If you need further information relating to these events, please
advise us.
SOOLL L y <.:k'
S
C. E. Murphy, Chief
Facilities Test and Startup Branch
_
_
__.
.
_ _ _ _ _ . . _ _
- .
, , . _ _
_