ML19319B221

Forwards Order Extending Completion Dates.W/O Encl

ML19319B221
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	07/30/1973
From:	Schwencer A US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	Karas F US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 8001130004
Download: ML19319B221 (1)

Text

i

' v f.

.A

. I" :

,{

i i

i

~ ~' d 9;',

s n

o n

1

.t

-.". 0 0 1373 -

s Docket ros.

-270 and 50-7-

a j

S-

?

Frank W. Karas, Chief.

Public Procce' dings Staff Office of t.bc. Secretary of

'the Coraission ORDEREXTEHDING.COMPLETI0hiDATTS

, Two~ signed or*-trials of 'an Order identified as follows 'are enclosed Lforfyourftrar. ittal to tlie. Office of the Federal Register for filing (and publicationi DUKE POWER COMPANY:

(Oconce Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3)J mp ^~

+r.

~ DOCKET NOS. 50-27$ AND 5N287[ '

~

.~.,.a.....:~,..

CEDER EXTENDING COMPLETION DATES:

Twelve additional conformed copies of the Order are enclosed for your-use.

_.Oridnal Signed By

%.Schweccer A. Schwencer, Chief Pressurir.ed Water Reactors-tranch No. 4 Directorate of Licensing.

4.

g

.g cia ;

,. J Enclosura::

2, As stated

~

IDISTRIBUTIOll:

. -4E ' l

..m-Dockets (2) y'.

v -

u; b, y

.e

'4

-PWR-4 w Aingi-

~

~

V

. " '.." %u.; w ?4:,

4 t.W 4

m,. :

x -,

'.;IAPaltierG s

.r T' f i

' ' ~

- ;.gget.wencer: -

n.

w..-

EIGoulbo,.urne (2);

y..

y7~

,c

~

c

~ TIngrasi-OIS :

s-c WcDonald,' CPS [

e-

., /-

'!*JileMas; KC l~

' CRESS f er_rict> -.L..:.P.W..R.4..'.....L..:.P.UR. 4..

LI

_4__.

., e

.N:e p F

975261: cme s

-... < ~

f\\ -

..A y _ _en'cer[

. I_: ". '._:'_-c :_..;_ 2_._

m.....

..E.lg.u.g.o.u..r_n e. p _A_ _P. [Thi.e..r..._.

I sun m ap

-_Es/.73 i

....... [., g_ -.......7..

7 _x J ~ _... _ _

.. _.. =.; _. a.. a.. _ _ _ :_

X 7

73J

- 7/23/.73. M ont>

7 y* ; Form AtC-318 (Rev. 9-53)f f.CM C 2 ;;., x.,. b g. *

g..

g.

g,A

.. M ygQ[} _

J 40 -

- e a s t.ovenwest ma s,,,ca.,,en. us.m y v.pg 22

1 c

Mx-Ch, ? ?i: v.,. Ta..:.w 3 80011300 N h

,~

_{

J ENCLOSURE NO. 1 DUKE POWER COMPANY - OCONEE NUCLEAR POVER STATION UNITS 2 AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-270/287 SUtmRY OF MEETINC - FEBRUARY 10, 1972 Summary A ceeting was held with Duke Power Connany and Pahcock and Uilcox on l} '

Tobruary 10, 1972 in Pethesda, Farvland.

The items listed on the attached.

arenda (Appendix A) were discussed in detail and the followina. iters remain as major unresolved issues on Units 2 and 3.

1.

Operating-Crew Size 2.

Industrial Security 3.

As Low As Practicable 4.

11ydrogen Control

'5.

Net Positive Suction Head 6.

Material Surveillance Proo. ram The purpose of the meetinn was to hold an initial necting with the anplicant prior to our review for license of Units 2 and 3.

Althounh itens other than those listed above will be reviewed we anticinate that thev vill he resolved within the tire _ frame of the reviou schedule which has been

established.

Duke was rade avare of our revien schedule which enlis for a' formal request for additional information frov the -nonlicant by 3/27/72 and an.._anplicant response (comoleted resnonse) by 5/1/72.- This schedule-is, essential to neetine a September 1972 ACRS neetine, October Safety Evaluation on Units 2 and 3 and licensinn of Unit 2 in tine for a December 1972 fuel loading-The six iters listed above will require priority attention by DRL and others involved in the develop!nent of oositions recardine these items.

6 9

8

'l

, i s

n,.

^^

w-

P a.

. Discussion 1.

Schedule (See Summary)

II.

Review Areas (Major)

A.

Industrial Security - The 33 criteria listed in the proposed industrial security plan cuidance were revicued with Duke.

Duke was advised of the limited circulation of the nian and the need for its plan to be submitted to AEC on a proprietary basis durine the revicu period (by May).

Duke uas also advised that an ANS committee uns workinn up an industrial security olan to be in draft form in anproximately six nonths.

Duke's reaction uns that this is a bin job and raised questions regarding the l

1.

1 InterfacinR of these plans with the U. S. Provost Marshal 2

The requirement Unit i licensing.for its plan to be on the record prior to B.

Crew Size - Duke still does not anrce with the DRL position (February 17, 1970 DRL letter) rerardin? staffine of the three operational units.

Duke has acreed to five ran start un of Unit 1 with a later review and evaluation (af ter exnerience on to reduce the numberto a four man shif t.

Duke does not acree with the 13 nan shift for operation of all three units and feels it can reet the nost denanding energency situation with less peopic.

Duke feels that it had der.onstrated ability down two plants f rom outside the control room, that one senior to shut reactor operator for each control room (2) is annle, that havinn a senior reactor operator on hand while handline fuel in the containment is a new concent and that works against industrial security.

too many neople on a shift C.

Ecernency Plannine - Duke was advised that it should review Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 to assure that nothine has been overlooked.

D.

"As Low As Practicable" - Duke was advised that as a c it vould be expected to use the existine olant cauierent and good judgecat to keep releases to the environrent sat a minimum and that there would be a heavy reliance unon nunerical nuides now being develoned by the AEC.

It was also pointed out that tech specs vould include non-radioactive releases urged to respond to the EPA corments in the Environmental Duke vas Statenent-(Draft) since its input vould be needed at an eariv date.

Duke raised a question regardinn its ficxibility on Tech Specs after the Environrental Statenent has been published i.

' Icgislate" a tech spec but could be expe t dsta

\\

L'c t

s ce to refer to Tech Specs.

\\

\\

n

~

~-

n

.x E.

Hydroren Control - Duke was advised that the decision on backfittine with-positive hydrocen control in. addition to nurcing (not yet

. vade) would probably be made_on the bases of release dones calculatc<

in accordance with Safety Guide, 'o. 7 and that. backfittine if required would apply to all thr. 3 units. However, resolution of.this problem will-not be a pre-licensine condition for onoration of Unit 1.

F.

Met Positive Suction Head - Duke (throuch PAW) stated that it has, analysis to sunport the adequacy of the UPSH narcin for the Oconce recirculation punns used for core heat removal assumine a "boilirg sunn."

Hocever, the containrent spray nunns have a deficit (2 psi) NPSH under the assunntion of the "boiline sunn."

Essentially, the analysis shows that 12 feet is required for the RHR punos and 17 feet is available.

However, for the reactor buildine snray nucps, 23 feet is required but only 18 feet is available.

-Duke.arrued that the sprays are not required in lirht of the reactor buildine air cooler canacity and further, no credit has been taken by Duke for iodine wash out by the sorav systen.

B&W was not.ahle at the necting to sunnart uith data its contention that only one cooler out of three is reonired to stay within the containment peak pressure.

(The next_ day the analysis was run and the results phoned to Schwencer and Peltier confir=ine contentica B&W's recornended solution is to throttle the norays back fron 1500 con to 1000 rpm after containrent nrossure fell below 2 usic.

B&W also' felt that containment pressure control could be exercised to maintain the 2 psig to give a NPSH for the spray pucos.

Duke was advised that it should document nroof that the suravs are not reouired for redundancv (to the coolers) if this is the Prior to this however, we would have to conclude that credit case.

will.be' allowed for containment pressure beinn caual to reactor building sunn saturation pressure.

G.

Inservice Inspe'etion of Secondary Systens - Duke was advised that we are continuine our' review of what needs to be done in-this

. area in licht.of recent experience with secondary systen component failures.

'RHR Valve Interlocks-- Duke was advised that the Oconee U "H.

do not ecct the pronosed euidance for P.HR valve interlocks.

This subject vill be reviewed at a pendine ncetine, betueen P&U and L

DRL.

A DRL position ~on this. natter recordine a condition of-licensing'of_ Unit 1 is recuired.

~;

8 yc e

~.

ei

_3 I.

. Thin Vall Valves - Duke was advised -that we are looking for assurance that:this' quality assurance ratter.is resolved. That is, do the Oconee Units have any thin wall valves and if so what is being-done about it?

J.

> ECCS ~ performance for snall breaks <.5 ft - Duke was advised that-we intend to look at the canner in which these small breaks have been analyzed and, as a miniru=, we would expect E&V to take a

.look at.it.

(In a subsequent phone. call from Duke to Schwencer and Peltier, Duke stated srall breaks analysis shows no problen

~~ ith B&W plants) w III.

Other Neview Areas A.

Material Surveillance i

~ B.

Fracture Touchness - Duke was advised by the FTER representative that the nronosed.10 CFR Part 50 Annendices G & H are essentially-obsolete.

B&U has net the reoufre ents of AST"-E-185-70 in the fabrication of cansules for 0conee 1 (ner on ' site) and Oconee 2 (now fabricated but not delivered). A cuestion remains as to whether archive naterial ou Unit 1 is available should Duke he required to comply with a new ruline.. Duke is concerned about the snount of backfittinn it vill be required to do once new rules are rencrated. An inmediate position needs to be developed

.on consules for Units l'and 2 if any chence is anticiented.

Since Unit 3' car sules cust be fabricated bv nid-vear, new guidance i

nust be availableLfor that unit prior to June 1972.

The Oconee Tech Snecs reeardine fracture-tourhness is open ended at this tire.-

DP.S plans to eive Duke cuidance after initial

' data ~ fron the surveillance program has been analyzed.

C.

Primary Puno Fivwheels - B&W has filed a letter (February 8,1972)'

i commentine-on the caterials asoects of Safety Guide 14.

Therefore,

. discussion of.this subiect was deferred until DRS has.had a chance!to review the letter. Duke was advised that requirenents in'the proposed guide may be less strincent than the Tech Snees

'for Unit 1.

D.

Containtent? Acceptance Tests and L;al durveillance - Duke has

.rmt recuirerents of 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix J on-Unit 1 and has no'problens with the nroposed rule. Discussion' centered around

. potential: changes ~ to. the rule particularly with renard to - full vs 1/2 pressure tests. Duke.noted that full pressure tests would be norel costly -in plant down time due to-the loncer. tine to reach ~

ofull pressure.

w'.

Sb "

j,pYhlg F *

~

^

_.r',

s e i

2 f

r i

_m M-_

o 3

l

. g i

g

- Other' Discussion - B&W contends that our.recent letter on.the control rod drive failure problem'in Oconce: 1' proposes a technioue of questionable value regarding nininum trip times. Data were presented indicatine that the difference in' drop tires for the case of water filled and partially cas filled housings is small and nieht be ensked by other influences. (such as -

, vear)'on total. drop time. ~tle 'anreed that it would probably be.innractical

. to establish a firm tech.soec if nit but succested that the data presented

~

indicates periodic ' drop test data should be carefully examined for possible

.cas build up.

Duke was asked'to explain the Revision 17 chances tio the high pressure injection system which reduced the HPI pumps from 500 enm to 450 npm and increased the valve openina tices from 10 to 14 secs. Duke exnlained that an addition of thernal sleeves in the line reduced the delivery rate

.of the pumps. -The valve opening tires were chanced because the delivered valves did not reet the procurerent spec.on test. Duke stated that these.

changes'vare known and taken into account at the tire of the ECCS analysis.-

b

/

i 2

0-g Y

.\\

5

- y.

\\,

y p1 e

n

e-

' APPE!; DIX A -

!!EETIsd WITil DUKE

-'OCONEli 2 & 3 REVIEW p

FEERUARY 10, 19's 2_

(P-130A).

AGENDA I.

Se.hedule-9:00 a.n.

Review Arcas ' (1:ajor)

~ 11. -

A.

Industrini Security -

B.-

Creu Site C.

EccrgencyIPlcnning 9

D.

As Lo.i As Practicable E. - =llydrogen Control F.

!!ct-Positive Suction llead C.

Inservice-Inspection of Secondary System

~ 11.

.. EllR Valve Interlocks 1.

Thin Wall Valves J.

-Small Ereaks - 4 5 ft2

111 Otlier. Review Arens~

1:00 p.n.

. A. Material Surve11ance

.B.'.Tracture Toughness-C.

Primary Pump Flywheels

D.;

. Containment Acceptance Tests and Leak Surveillance O-

..s, 4

l

~.n'g.

t

.s

' 7

[G '

- Q,. 4,:

1

$-4M'

^

- e

c g

.i i: -

3 g

.~

59 ENCLOSURE No.'2 ATTFJIDANCE LIST OCONEE UNITS NOS. 2 AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-270/287 FEBRUARY 10, 1972_

,, Duke' Power Connany P. H. Barton W. O. Parker, Jr.

R. J. Ansell'

-K.-S. Canady:

J. E. Smith B&W R.-N. Eduards R. R.-Steinke R. V. Straub C. Baroch F.C -- DRL/CO/DRS

-A.'Schwencer, DRL-I. Feltier, DRL-

~

R. Bernero,:DRLL

'C.:Murphey, CO:II' D. Pomeroy, DRL' M.:Bolotsky, DRS-

M.' Fairtile, DRS R;

VanNiel,~DRL~

i

.h a

iH:

l b; b v, 5k:

P'.

-t

?-

~

9 9

,e-9.-

g-