ML19317F428
| ML19317F428 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 06/01/1973 |
| From: | Tedesco R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Deyoung R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317F429 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001140672 | |
| Download: ML19317F428 (2) | |
Text
4 o
e i
Docket Nos.
/287 MI U13 R. C. DeYoung Assistant Director for Pressurized Unter Reactors, L SUPPLE!!ENT TO THE SAFETY EVALUATION FOR OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3 - CCNTAIN!ENT SYSTE!!S BRANCH - DOCKET NOS. 50-270 AND 287 Plant Namet Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3 Docket Nos. 50-270/287 Licensing Stage OL Vendor Babcock & Wilcox Architect Engineer Bechtel j
Responsible Brandh 6 Project !!anagers FWR f48 I. Peltier
~
Required Completion Date: June 1, 1973 Applicant's Response Dates No Schedule Description of Responses N/A Review Statust Incomplete Ve have reviewed ~the applicant's analysis of the containment and associated subcompartment pressure responces following a postulated design basis loss-of-coolant accident. The results of this review are given in the enclosed safety evaluation.
We agree with the applicant's analysis of the contai m ent pressure; however, our review of the applicant's subcompartment analyses remains as an incomplete item.
)
Ve have evaluated the pressure response for both the reactor vessel cavity and the steam generator compartments. We conclude that the design basis of the reactor vessel cavity is acceptable; however, the design value for the steam generator subcoupartments does not appear acceptable to us at the present time because of the difference between our calculated peak pressure differential of approxicately 18 poi and the specified design value of 11.1 psi.
Our evaluation of the subcomparttent pressure response is based on use of the RELAP 3 computer program considering Moody flow at the break with a cultiplier of 1.0 and a Moody multiplier of 0.6 at the vents. This is the same method of enalysis that we have used on other plants.
he<et _1 e
~~
~ ~
ggg B$$b
~
g c[ $..
,g e -
%3*
,. *,
- W eh*,$ ht&**
- 46
- 8001140 67k g
o R. C. DeYoung i We siso note that the applicant's analysis is different for Oconee 2/3 than for Arkansas 1, which is a sinitar plant. Our analysis for Arkansas turned out in good agrecrent with that applicant's analysis
. and we found it acceptable.
Because it appears that our calculated subcor.partment pressure may
-be greator than the reported design prcosure, we believe that the applicant should reavalusto the structural capability of the stca:a generator co:::partment. This action has been done on other plants and sufficient margin has been found to esiit so that the capability becoces greater than the calculated pressure.
It is recommended that a uoeting with the applicant be arranged to resolve this open itan.
tj.
Original cicud by.
R. L. Todesco Robert L. Tedesco, t.asistant Director for Containment Safety Directorate of Licensing Enclosures As stated cci w/o encl.
A. Cianbusso W. Mcdonald w/ encl.
J. Hendrie S. Hannuer A. Schwencer I. Feltier J. Clynn J. Kudrick C. Lainas W. Jensen L Reading L:CS Reading L:CSB Reading l
Docket file (50-270/287) l-omcc >
LICSB _'_ __
SA L.CRB_ _
.....L 1 sunnauc >. Jen ie t.:.....JKudrick..
imi BTgd..e.s c o....
(d./4 L-6
......F.7 7.......g..+.. 73. L.\\..U.a....
.. n........n........... _
4 Fone AIC-Ste (Rev.9-53) AECM 0240 f-C
.es--as-41.as-mwis p
j b
i