ML19317E821
| ML19317E821 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 07/29/1968 |
| From: | Grimes B US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Morris P US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912190982 | |
| Download: ML19317E821 (2) | |
Text
-
u.
ik;
- i e
i UNITED STATES 5
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
[ 1 '*
WASHINGTON. D.C.
20545 I
\\
7f
%n e July 29,19c8 P. A. Merris, Director, DEL i
,7 THRU:
R. S. Ecyd, Asst Dir, Reactor Projects, DPf '
J POLLOW-U? LEEII:IG Wm DUKE PCWER C0h!PAITY ON POST-00ITSTRUCTICII PERMIT ITEs, DOCKETS 50-269/270/287 The following items were specified in cur Ccnstruction Permit review of the Ocenee Units 1, 2 and 3 as requiring further discussion or examina-tion with Duke Pcwer Ccmpany and are items which I feel shculd nct be left until the Operating License review stage for resciution.
1.
Undarvater Weir Design - We stated that we vculd examine the final design cf the weir and it vill shcr:1y be covered by water.
2.
Detailed Design of ECCS - The ACRS recc= mended that the staff examine the design as scen as it is available.
3 Ccre Barrel Check Valves
"'he number and sice of these valves was not available at the time of the CP review, and we should review the design basis and =argin in capacity arrived at by ' V applicant.
k.
Precterational Environmental Monitoring Program - We should review tne details of the proposed precperational surveys before the Cperatihg License review.
5 Thernal Shock - We should review with the applicant the current status of their thermal shock studies.
In addition to the above "centinuing review" subjects I think we shculd bring sc the applicant's attentica the folleving new rec.uirements (since the Duke review) being i=pesed at the CP stage which may affect the Ocenee Unit at the operating license stage.
It should be pointed cut to the applicant that while complete backfitting may not te required on Unit 1, the se:cnd and third units should evidence a high degree of ccupliance with the fcileving items.
1.
Tornade design of the fuel pec1 should insure minimal fission prcduct release.
2.
Extended operaticn in the recirculation mode shculd be possible with the high pressure injection pumps after an accident.
~
7912190 Y M
~
P. A. Morris July 29, 1 %8 3
The ECCS including the sertice water system should have the capability to withstand a passive failure en a long-term basis.
h.
Design basis earthquake and accident leads should be ccabined in the design of the primar/ system.
In discussing a fcllevup meeting with Mr. W. 3. Lee, of Duke Pcuer, he requested that the meeting be held August 29, 1960, if possible, and that the following subjects also be ccasidered for resolution at this time rather than vaiting until the Operating License review. These subjects are:
1.
Final calculatica of blevdown forces on the core internals 2.
Diversity of signals for the ECCS 3
Independence of the pcuer supplies for each unit 4.
Ccmpleticn of steam generatcr Research and Devalcpment 5
Arrangement of the centrol red drive scram bus.
Mr. Lee also stated that he vculd be prepared to give a status repcrt en the following items, perhaps in a separate meeting with the DEL staff.
1.
Lccal fuel melting studies 2.
Quality assurance 3
Pesitive moderator-ccefficient h.
End-of-life transients en the fuel 5
Xenen stability including in-ccre instrumentation 6.
Control rod drive testing 7
Flow distribution studies 3.
nonuniform exial burncut tests 9
The possibility of core bypass of accumulator injection flow.
The Duke applicaticn for operating licenses -4.11 be submitted about July 1969, with a tentative fuel loading date of December 1970. Duke feels that the early (18 months lead time ) submittal is desirable to acver the pcssibility that they might beat their Dece=ber 1970 target date.
^
t-s
~
- 3. K. Grimes Reacter Projects 3 ranch No. 3, ORL e
9