ML19329A495
| ML19329A495 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 10/19/1972 |
| From: | Deyoung R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Hendrie J US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001060007 | |
| Download: ML19329A495 (2) | |
Text
3 OCT 1 9 872 Docket No. 50-269 J. M. Hendrie, Deputy Director for Technical Review Directorate of Licensing OCONEE UNIT 1 LICENSING Except as noted below the safety review and evaluation for Oconee Unit I has been completed. An ACRS letter was received September 23, 1970, 29, 1970 and Technical Specifications Safety Evaluation Report issued DecemberAn ECCS Supple:nent (Supplement No.1) to approved August 28, 1972.
Safety Evaluation Report was issued March 24, 1972.
Since the original-Safety Evaluation Report several areas have required addit $onal review and evalustion. They are:
Oconee Unit ~1 suffered damage to the primary syste:2 during hot 1.
functional testing as a consequence of flow induced failures of This area is being reviewed by Technical internal components.
Review on a schedule coacnensurate with fuel loading in January of 1973, Questions arising from RCCS hearings have resulted in the analysis 2.
of postulated small breaks in the primary system and the analysis of the postulated rupture of a flood tank line, both causing a LOCA.
i but the schedule
.These areas are being reviewed by Technical Rev ew for conpletion is uncertain.
The commitment by Licensing to reach a position regarding post LOCA 3.
hydrogen control equipment in oconee has existed since December 29, 1970
-~
(see original Safety Evaluation Report). In this area Technical Review has evaluated the potential _ sources of hydrogen within the containment, the time that 'p' urging must begin, the required purging rate and the
. ~
resulting radiological consequences following a !UIA for the case where containment purging is the only means of hydrogen control.
We anticipate that the first area above will be resolved in sufficient time to present our evaluation to.the ACRS in December 1972 and license Oconee Unit 1 in January 1973.
OnlCE >
SunkADIE >
DATE >
Persa AEO-318 L ev.9-53) AECM 0240
- c. s covsmNuzur ramm orra s non o. eos.ses R
8001060 0 0 7 i
< OCT 19 M J. M, Hendrie Therefore, The second area is uncertain with regard to complete resolution.
we need Technical Review's recotmendation as to whether or not we should (1) vait for complete resolution before licensins, (2) proceed on the basis of a partial power license, or (3) proceed on the basis of a full power Obviously because of the tight schedule the earlier this recom-license.
nendation can be made the better.
The third area does not affect the decision to license but rather the We need Technical Reviev's recornandation, in conditions of licensing.
light of the analyses and evaluations aircady performed, as to whether Licensing should propose backfitting Oconee with hydrogen control means (other than purging) to provide a significant improvement in safety to the public.
I Since a backfitting proposal vill require Cornission r view an early reco==endation is desirable in this area.
Your early response to this memo will be appreciat.ed. If you have any questions regarding these matters please contact us, original sigidd 'by R. C. DeYoung R. C. DeYoung, Assistant Director for Pressurized Water Reactors Directorate of Licensing cc:
R. R. Maccary H. Denton D. Knuth
/*
DISTRIBUTION R. Tedesco Docket W. Mcdonald RP Reading PWR4 Reading J. Callo R. C. DeToung A. Schwencer I. A. Peltier omet > L:PWR,.4.
........L
-4 L:AD/P
\\
$URNWC > W eltikr. cmp... ASc nCer -.R g..
.1Di$f12...
101.0.172....10f{c.J2?
unt>
- s. covrammENT PaprToeo orrics : ist. o. sos.ses Form AEC-St8 (Rev.9 53) AECM 0240