ML19319B243

Summary of ACRS 730809 Full Committee Meeting in Washington, DC Re History of Project,Site Description & Future Projections,Status of AEC Review & Ongoing R&D

ML19319B243
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	08/15/1973
From:	Peltier I US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 8001130047
Download: ML19319B243 (3)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. - jk W. K. G e hug 15 E3 ~~ . DOCKET NOS. 50.-270 AND 50-287 ~ ... DUKE PO'4ER COMPANY APPLICANT: - FACILITY:' OCOUZE UNITS 2 AND 3 ACES WLL CC2bi1TTEE HEETING, AUGUST 9,1973, WASHINCION, D. C. The full ACRS co:=sittee net August 9,1973 to discuss various~ subjects described in the attached ACRS agenda. - The ACRS chairman concluded ithat-the com:mittee would be able to write an ACRS letter on Oconee . Units 2 and 3 at'this ceeting.-- j _ Significant itens discussed are described below: 1. History of Project. Site Description and Future Projections The Duke staff nade presentations on these subjectr. The cornittee ~had few questions.. One question, and the only one of significance, related to the Seismic Class I design of the dans in the water system.. h applicant stated that the da=s are Class I. 2. Status of Staff Review h LPH succarized the~ status of the staff review since issuance of the SER.: He pointed out that fuel densification and steam generator subcompartnent evaluations had been co=pleted and the applicant vould provide filters for the spent. fuel handling building vents. The con:sittee inquired as to whethar or not the . staff had used a standard approach to calculating two phase mixtures during blevdown through the stea:a generator subcompartment vents. N answer m s "yes". Following the staff su==ary a nunbcr of questions were raised by

the co::anittee in a variety of areas. h more significant were as follows:

4 ~. - - - ~ . %?? " f S o

m ~ ', 7 - ' s .? ' Y~ ~. .s., n- _ 3 + ' r y_. r 4.- .3' 0 a.3 dWil1 the heatup and cooldown limits for the primary systein

in the' Technical Specifications be conservative with respect.

to' Appendix G 'ASNE Code Section 37 The staff indicated = f !: that it is reviewing this subject further.; b.L M ere vas sone discunsten' to clarify the accident and purge ~ ~ f. dose. calculations presented in the SER.' z Th'e' staff was asked ~ if it. is tutking'an attenpt to reduce -these' doses. The staff ~ .responddd-that it is" attempting to reduce-these dosas for new ' plants but was. satisfied with the dc,ses.on the older pinnts. Thef applicant was. asked if his emergency plans provided for

evacuating,- feeding and housing people in the LPZ for up to

..s 1 150fdaysfollowing'sLOCA.. The applicant responded by saying -{ ' 4} .that he'could do this in the unlikely eventfsuch'aL } requirement ever arose.'

c. - One me=ber of the comittee felt that th'e staff's dose calculations are overly conservative and should be made nore' realistic. The staff responded by saying it is

reviewing the whole policy with regard to purging and dose

assumptions.

d. 'Ihe; com:nittee inquired as to whether or not the Oconee - pu=p flywhecia meet the present guidelines. The applicant' i stated that the flywheel material is the same as present' vintage flywheels and initially'the 0cenae flywheels received-full volumetric inspection. Critieni regions of the flywheel can be inspected in place but a full volumetrie- ~ inspection vould require partial disassembly in the future. l 63. Oniscin6 R&D E&W listed the' ongoing R&D related to ECCS in which B&W is either participating or is conducting. The creas vere: a)' Post' critical heat flux heat transfer data during blowdown, b)~' Discharge coefficients during blevdown, lc), punp perfornanca durinE blowdova, fd)r Eeat'up during reflood stage, - e). Fuel rod cladding tests. m 4 4 .k e v i .wi t 's/ s 5 " s+ ?d & -?Pb / [ d 4f 01 7 ()$ 4

"f, fe 4

f % y ( ~" 'a i h.. - ' 4 g .'...y ,if k ~ . _.y s .: q.. g llW W&n%AQhE5 SANb?hQ.5h&WO'Nyih %% gh %4

5, fg-jbMS'

wd% ^ ' ~ U$ 'l.04 l o.

p .- vr-. .[ 4

m

+

y ^

e

4. ' The coc::2itteel' inquired as to whether or' not the staff had s

criteria for judging the adequacy of reaction ~ time to events such' as tho' failure of non-Class I equipme*2t which could 'jeopardiza lClas's:.I systccs. LThe staff responded by saying that'such criteria V. --is under develop::entbut these considerations.'are r:ade on a case by' casa basis at' this, time. 55. The applicant made a short presentation on oconce Unit l' operating history. The comsittee had few questions'primarily for clarification of. tests performed during start up. ( I.' A. Poltidr, Project Manager -- )L Pressurized Water Reactors Br. No. 4 Directorate of Licensing -cc: R. C. DeToung' _DISTRIEUTION ' A. Schwencer; Dockets R. ~ W. 1*.lecker - PWR-4_Rdg.

RO-(3).

L Rdg .TR Assistant-Directors-RP Rdg TR Dranch Chiefs AEC PDR I."A. Peltier Local PDR

R.. Clark

-E.:I. Goulbourne J. Hendrie-RP Assistant Directors RP Eranch Chiefs

H..Wilchins-1 R

J. Callo \\ s S u - ~. I I ' l ': c m et >..PMR.4J...... o' _ sumut > 1Peltier.:kaf. g. y y. - u g 'Nat>.8/.b.f.,N/Y3. J.t 1 r 4tc_3i. ta. 433 41cu.34. -- %~ O? *]; W I u;_. ~}}