ML19319B097
| ML19319B097 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 06/21/1972 |
| From: | Peltier I US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Deyoung R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001070661 | |
| Download: ML19319B097 (9) | |
Text
. _ __
( Q.,
L g
Kg.)hh UNITED STATES e,
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION l *l 7h) ?'
I
=
wAsNINGToN. D.C. 20548
{Q
?
JUN 21 Igy 4
R. C. DeYoung, Assistant Director, F'as, L g
TERU A. Schwencer, Chief, PWR 3 ranch No. 4, L MEETING WITH DUKE PGC1 COMPANY AND 3A3CCCK & WILCO CONC 2D ING REVIEW OF THE OCCtGR UNIT 1 TIT 9ICAL SPECI7ICATIONS - DOCXZT No. 50-269 Rnclosed is a sumanary of the sneating hald on June 15, 1972 with Duke
~
Fower Company and Babcock & Wilcos. An attendance list is also enclosed.
I. A.
altier, Project Leader PWR 3rsach No. 4 Directorate of Licensing
Enclosures:
Neeting Summaary Attendance List cc:
R. S. 3cyd R. C. DeYoung D. Skovholt D. Knuth R. Maccary R. Tsdesco H. Denton PWR 3 ranch Chists R. W. Klacker M. Rosen R0 (3)
I. A. Faltier Licassing Assistant j
C. E. Murphy R. Follard
- 1. Vem Nial 8003079 p
y i
/
ENCtDSUR3 I_
MEETING 'JITH DUKE POWER CCMPANY_
AND BA3 COCK & WILCCI ON OCONEE_
UNIT 1 TECHNICAL SPECI7ICATIONS The following' comments, rasted during the Ocone.e
~ ~ '
d to the Unit 1
- 1. Electrical Specifications _:2'/3 reviaw,~whicE appeared to be sigEf'1' c
- 28. 1972) were considered.
Technical Specifications, (s es meno dated May
'"~ ~ ~
) and Specifi-
)
Specification 2.3 (Page 2.3-1 and Item 3 of Tabl limi for the i
1.
This inconsistency l loop operation,
_ ump monitor during the sing e p
should be resolved.
The difference in the limits specified in these two Duke specifications was intentional at the time of the writinx.
Resolutions l
2.3-1.
will clarify by adding footnota 6 to item 3 and 7 in Tab e l
i 3.1.8.4
~ 2, Specification 2.3 (Itsa 7 of Table 2.3-1) and Specificationtemperatur conflict with regard to the reactor coolantThis inconsistency should be limit during singla loop operation.
resolved.
i Same as item 1 above.
Resolution:
l hold Specification 3.1.9.2 requires that "Startup rate red withdrawaRe shall be in ef fect at all times."
3.
fication:
Specification added the following to the bases for that speci
? Technical Specification 31.9.2 will apply to both the so intesinediate ranges."
fication rather than in this latter sentence should appear in the speci the bases.
The present wording is implied in Specification 3.1.9.2, improve however, Unit 2/3 Technical Specifications will be revised to Easolutions
-clarity.
Specification 3.3.lb (4) states that "Two cora flood tank pressure instrument channels shall be operable,'.'
4.
t channels.
two pressure instrument channel:s and two lavel instrur.en
- ee er-
w
-e,,
+
.,e., -
1a-
~ '
i t
P 2-in addition, both pressure and level are addressed in Specification Therefore Specification 3.3.15. (4) should, as a mininum,
- 3. 3. lb (1).
require that one pressure instrument and one level insert.sent be operabia fcr each core flooding tank.
Duke agreed with this change and will revise the Unit 1 Rasolution:
Technical Specifications.
{
- 5. ' Specification 3.3 is written in terms of the requirements that must Since the systess be met before the reactor is made critical.
addressed by this specification are required for safety whenever the
.._ reactor is not in a cold shutdown conditien (regardless of whether the reactofis critical or not), the' specification shculd be writtan in
~
terms of the requirements that must be met before the reactor is heated above a specified temperature.
.iowever, A good point has been raised by this question.
Resolution:
resolution was postponed until Unit 2/3 Technical Specifications.
4
'ihen the Footnote '(s) can be removed from Item 15 of Table 3.5.1-1,
" Turbine Stop Valves closure" instruments are not operable and the 6.
l reactor is in a het shutdown condition, there is no need to require a l
cold shutdown only on the basis that those instruments are inoperable.
I This is not a critical concern and therefore resolution Resolution:
was postponed until Unit 2/3 Techniaal Specifications.
-Specification 4.6.6c should be changed to require that the battery discharged test be performed during each refueling shutdown rather than 7.
the proposed five-year incarvals.
Duke agreed to this change and will add worus to specify a Resolution:
di.scharge test under maximum anticipated nertency battery loads for and hour.
It will not be naqassary to show wnather or not the batteries have been dagraded.in terms of cagacity beyond this requirement.
~
The 230 KV transmission lines for the Oconee Station eto installed in
'8.
Therefora, Specification 3.7.la.
pairs on double circuit towers.
should not allow operation with oniv two transmission lines in service if those two lines are on the same towers because this would violate General Design Critation 17.
Resolution: Duke stated that this cocument innlies no chanee in what
'it had planned to do and that it would add words to the snecification stating that the two 230 kV lines would be on separate towers as an additional Technical Specification restriction.
I:
p S-
-s s-w.s--
e,e.,s
<+e--,
--e,--.
v.,,
--y.,9-,.,
,e,
,g,,e
,y Dr 7Y"YT**N vi-=" ' =
W
. 9.. Specification.3.7.lb. ahould be changed to: "Startue transformers j
No. CT1 and No. CT2 shall be operabia and espable of supp1ving power j
- to the Unit 1.4160 V Main.7eeder Suses No. I and No. 2."
The proposed "CT1 or CT2" violates CDC-17 and the proposed " connected" does not accurately describe the intended mode of coeration, i.e.,
the main feeder buses are connected _ to transformer No. 17.
Recognizint l
that sven if both CT1 and CT2 are operable, the desirn will not meet i
CDC-17 until af ter Unic 2 begins operation. it should be accestable
)
to allow either CT1 or CT2 to be out of service for a relatively lone time.
Resolution: Duke agreed with this comment and will make the above channe in the Unit 1 Technical Specification.
10.
Specification 3.7.le should include the words at the end of the last sentence " _ _ _,once the reactor has been brought critical."
. Note:~ Duke does not agree with our position that the gas turbine at the Lee Station cannot be used as
- a. qualified on site power source.- Duke has committad this gas turbine to i
oconee - and put in the 100 kV ' line from Lee for this purpose.
Duke is willing to commit all three gas turbines at Lee Station to Ocones.
If a turbine is lost, Duke would short the Oconee 1 start-up.
Resolution:. Unresolved.
11.
It is questioned whether the reference to Figure 3-5 of the FSAR in Specification 3.7.1h. is acceptable because that 7SAR figure does not actually show the equipment in Unit 2 that must be operable for safe operation of Unit 1.
]
Resolution: Duke agreed with this comment and will re-write the specification to state what equipment from Unit 2 must be operable for Unit 1 operation.
- 12. The proposed Specification 3.7.2 allows Unit 1 to remain critical or be restarted if one hydro unit or the underzround feeder ~is not operable. We'do not concur that this is accentable. Our evaluation of the Ocones design was that the Lee Steam Station combustion turbines could serve as an alternate power source to the station Standby Power Buses.only after a review of the results of full load rejection tests on. the Oconee units.
It was nit concluded that the combusteEn turbine could serve as a substitute for a failed hydro
. unit. This position was previously expressed to the applicant in a-letter from P..A. Morris, dated June 14, 1971.
=.
~
h
- This comment does not accurately state our orsvious h
position and so it was restated to read that t e Note:
deleted ss
" underground feeder circuit" should bea degra d that f
d to the_
the. operable hydro unit should be connecte bine is underground feeder while the Lee Station k
j The words "or the (not connected to the standby bus).
ification f
underground feeder" should be deleted from spec 3.7.2-c.
This item is unrasolved but D@a has agreed to write a the underground new specifiestion for_.the degraded condition when Resolution:
feeder is out of service.
i critical or The proposed Specification 3.7.3 allows Unit 1 to rema n lost."
be restarted in the event "all 230 kV transmi.ssion 13.
l at least two We do not believe that startup should be 211osed un ess l
ffsite power physically independent circuits are available to supp y oWith re h ld be in.accordance with GDC-17.following loss of all 230 kV lines.
rewritten to require that both hydro units be starte ther connected h
with one connected to the Standby Power Buses and t e osformer CT1 through the 230 kV ewitch yard to either tran and transformer d the 100 kV One Lee Steam Station combustion turbine should be starte,
k transmission line separated from the networ,
Standby Power Euses The combustion turbine should not be connec h hydro unit is a more reliable source.
We agreed to let the soecification stand as written 0
dded to the provided a "3.7.3-c Tavg shall be above 500 7" is a Resolution:
specification.
d of The plant has been physically designed and built for the mo ean operation specified in specification 3.7.3 Lee gas turbine in this condition would trigger the same emer hydro action as a loss of off-site power in the unrestricted
~
aission 14.- Specification 3.7.4, as presently woeded, annears to give i
- for operation without regarUnless the applicant desires to ide for those conditions, i
and to propose appropriate technical specificat ons systems.:
ld the following:
this specification should be reworded to inc u e "In the event of any degradation beyond Specification 3.7.1, in a hot shutdown 3.7.2,' or 3.7.3 above, the reactor shall be placedIf the reqsire h ll condition within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.3.7.1' are not met within an addi be placed in a cold-shutdown condition-vithin 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
y 1 i This item was postponed until 2/3 Technical Specificat o because the staf f does not have a well thought out pos Resolution:
The Unit 1. Technical Specificatiens to additional degraded conditions.
remain so for the will remain as is for the time beinn but will notWe are developing life' of the plant.
ditions necessary Specification 3.7 is written with regard to the conSince electrical po ii l if the reactor prict to bringing the reactor cr t ca.
'15.
necesaary to maintain the plant in a safe condition even d
The is suberitical, the specification should refleet that nee.
h aed as follows introductory sentence to Specification 3.7.1 could be c an to' accomplish this:
above "The reactor shall not be heated or maintained at temperatures
- ? unless the following conditions are met."
i This is the same point raised with respect to specificat o Resolution was postponed until Unit 2/3 Technical Resolution:
3.3 above (Icem 5).
Specifications.
The following comments were raised during theh r Administrative Controls _:
Oconee 2/3 review and appeared to be significant wit 11.
Technical Specifications.
h current Specification 6.1.1.5 and 6.1.1.6 can be updated to reflect t e 1.
status of-the ANS standard.
Duke sgreed.
Resolution:
ber of 6.1.1,7 - This specification should state that at least one mem) w each shif t is familiar (in a qualified sense f a health physics 2.
protection-procedures. and meets the requirements o 4
h technician.
Duke will consider and include the appropriate words in Duh4 was receotive to a nommitment of this Resolution:
Technical Specifiestions.
kind.
A waiver of the 1 and Table 6.1-1.
- 3. ' Delete the asterisk on Figure 6.1-licensed for requirement that the Assistant Control Operato f licensing i
hift requirements f
provided that, in addition to the minimum operat ng st ff members fro Jahown;on Table 6.1-1, one or nore senior s a ff, or Nuclear Plant Staff, qualified memebers of the Genera i t e of their training and experience can provide competen t
the startup' and power ascension program) is presen.
1 a
n-
t l
l- :
I l
Resolution: Duke has ten men going for a cold license (9SRO and 1RO);
i five men for shift SROs and one man for shift RO.
Duke feels it is I
too late to no back and get mora licensed operators. Duke is not willing to constit a BW startup engineer full-time but is willine to do ao for cold startup and during transient and special tests. This item was shelved until we can get a reading from Operating License i
Branch regarding the cold license exam for the Assistant Control j
operator.
4.
There was considerable discussion with regard to RO and OR concerns over the Oconee Unit 1 Technical Specifications and how well they meet the intent of ANS 3.2 and Safety Guide 16.
Resolution:
It was agreed that Duke would_asjture_ us_.that_the specifications meet the intent of ANS 3.2 and Safety' Guide 16 and would revise -the specifications to be more specific in some areas.
For example:
a) Specification 6.1.2.2 would be compared to ANS 3.2 to make sure the General Office Review Consmittee conforms.
b) The definition of " abnormal occurrence" in section 1.8 of the specification will apply to specification 6.2.1 but reference to this definition will be deleted from specification 6.6 and those things that will be reported will be listed in 6.6.
It was agreed that the essential points of ANS 3.2 and Safety Guide 16 should be and are covered by the Unit 1 Technical Specifications but that improving the format would be postponed until Unit 2/3 Tecnnical Specifications.
III.
Rad Waste Limits:
Duke was handed a copy of the Maine Yankee Technical Specifications regarding liquid and gaseous rad waste which are serving r as our models for meeting the intent of proposed appendix 1.
Duke was told that we would expect the Oconee 1 Technical Specifications to be equivalent.
Duke will review these models and get back with as for guidance on the final preparation.
IV.
Environmental Tech Soece: Duke was told that the Oconee Unit 1 Technical Specifications may be required to include limits, surveillance and reporting on environmental effects stemming from the Environmental Statement. We were not prepared to offer guidance.. Duke does not believe that these matters should be part of a nuclear plant specification especially since they are still undergoing negotiation with EPA. Duke is willing to list the standards it is required to meet for operation of the plant in the technical specification but wu told Duka we did not believe this would be adeouste and pointed out that Surry has already had environmental matters included in its Technical Specifications. Duke will valt for guidance from us.
k
_y-V.
Miscellaneous Iteest The following is a list of miscellaneous items which will be changed in the Ocones Unit 1 Specifiestions.
1.
Pase 1 Item d - Insert "or reactor procactive system."
2.
Page 2.1 Typo "because" 5th line.
3.
Page 3.1 Page not numbered.
i I
4.-
Page 3.1 The conditions under which f is determined (pressure and temperature) will be stated.
5.
Page 3.3 Section 3.3.3-c - Change "only one" to "no more than one."
6.
Page 3.6 Sect 3.6.3 and 3.6.4 - Since these are containment specifications they should be written in the positive sense and not as reactor specifications. We are not insisting on this chanze, however.
7.
Pages 4.1-5 and 4.1 Items 16, 18 and 20 - ChanAe from "3/M" to "M"
in Test column.
8.
Pane 4.1-7a - Item 49 - Change from "1" to "P" in Test column.
9.
Page 4.11 Last paragraph under "Basee" - add words "and as low as practicable" af ter "10 C7R 20."
10.
Page 4.14 Section 4.14 will state the frequency at which the charcoal absorbers used in the radiation monitors for Iodine will be changed.
11.
Page 4.412 and 4.4 Specification 4.4.1.1.5b will be changed in the 4th line to read "50% of the value permitted in 4.4.1.1.2.
The last paragraph of the bases will be changed to state the correct basis for specifying a total leak rate of 0.125% from penetrations and isolation valves.
c i
(.
\\
SN
_ ENCLOSURE II
-0CONEE NUCLEAR STATION MEET:yc AITENDANCE LIsr June 15, 1972
- JAME ORGANIZATION FUNCTIONAL TITLE I. Peltier i
A. Schwencer AEC, Licensing i
J. Ed Smith AEC, Licensing
?roject Leader, PWR-4 I
R. ~,. Straub Duke - Oconee Chief, ?WR-4 Paul H. 3arton Dabcock & Wilcox Superintendent Duke Power Company Project Manager K. S. Canady Manager, Technical and Nuclear Service R. J. Ansell Duke Power Company George W. Cage Duke Power Company System Nuclear Engineer Maurice McIntosh Duke (ONS)
- 3. M. Rice Duke (ONS)
Assistant Operating Engineer A. C. Thies Duke Power Company Operating Engineer W. O. Parker Duke Power Company Staff Electrical Engineer Duke Power Company Senior Vice President C. E. Murphy Assistant Manager Steam C. R. Van Niel AEC, RO II Production AEC, Licensing Principal Reactor Inspector Reactor Safety Specialist j
i d
i l
Y
_