ML19319B062
| ML19319B062 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 12/23/1971 |
| From: | Case E US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Morris P US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001070584 | |
| Download: ML19319B062 (2) | |
Text
_.
-[
k 7
f l
DEC 2 31971 Peter A. Morris, Director, Divistaa of Reactor I,1 censing SEPARATIGE OF REDEREh43rr INSTEMEME AND emtenr. CABURS 25 IIR occeDRE ESCULAR STATfm, WWITS 1, 8 AND 3. DOCERT 508. 50-269, 50-270 AND 50-287 l
In response to your teem 4mm1 assistance request dated Deceder 7,1971, our :=ahtions for resolving the probless regarding adequate separa-tion of redundant cables la the Decess Nuclear Station are discussed below.
Based on a review of the appliaant's early and revised cable tasta11_=*f,_
criteria, appliomble reports from the Division of Compliance, and the observations of R. Fellard, Bas, abo visited the site sa Nove d er 30, 1971, we have r==ehaA the following conclusicas.
For oconee 1. Duka Power violated the cable separation criteria which were documented in the BAR at the time of the ACRS review. Further, the criteria shich were approved for Ocenes are ecosiderably less stringent than our i
present requirements for construction permit revious.
We concluded, hauever, l
during the econee review that backfittias to most present day criteria would not be required. The violation of the aristaal ySAR criteria reduced the vertical physical separation from five inebes to about one inch in some The reduction in separation results from overfilling of cable trays.
cases.
Since the oconee ACR5 meettag, Duke Power has P==adad the separation cri-teria in the FSAR to match the installation.
The follawing ooneiderations infimenos the acceptability of the ocomme 1 lastallation:
1.
Armored emble is used exclusively and this tends to =i=4=8==
the effect of the rad aad separation.
2.
A major effort would be required to seks the installation agree with the original criteria. It is hi
_t la safety is e - ghly questionable ubetber the i--..
=** with the effort.
3.
Implementation of the original ariteria would not result in the degree of shammel isoltm H am initially aatteipated.
l e-l r
~
~
.._4._
.... ~...
-6 s
ef*....
-- -+ v4 -
i,%,. m.,:y 9 6-ygpeevn ~~y& WyeswAMm2=ve_*C:
- '- ' +* **KnWpvA9W4 v.
nynownw sv ei,m w- ~ : wwsyw.
.r 800107 o Sg
n
.(
. wp P. A. Morris 2
DEC 2 319n l
. Based on these considerations, we have concluded that it is not desirabia to require changes la Oconee 1 to make the installation meet Duke Power's
' original critaria.- We believe, however, that we should meet with Duke to discuss changes which can be made at this tium.
Although we consider the present installation to be marginally acce.ptable, we would like to discuss the possibilities of installing barriers between trays and making improve mante in the manner that vertical cables are brought through horima=*=1 cable trays.
.With regard to Oconee 2 an5 3, we believe that, as a = fat==, we should obtain a commitment from Duke Power to meet their original separation
}
criteria.
Duke Power should docummat the additional means that will used to insure that these criteria will be properly inglemented by their construction force.
running vertical cables agreed to for Oconee 1 abould als at Oconee 2 and 3.
i.
Original,igned by,
- u. c.~
ESB-116 DRS:ESB:EDP Edson C. Case, Director Division of Emactor Standards ect S. Hanager, DR R. DeYoung, DEL R. Boyd, DEL
[
D. Skovholt, DEL A. Schwencer, DRL
- 0. Parr, DRL
DR RF DRS RF ESB RF Suppi e
i omer >. PRS:ESB DRS:EdB _
D---
- IR PO
- rci 0
[;
.CA we,
{
oms 12/g3/71 ~
12/2f/71
'12/p71
. a Form ABC-318 (Rev.943) ABCM ONO y4 I
- u s.cowmeuem men omes. newnse
^
- - - -