ML19329A500
| ML19329A500 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 03/06/1978 |
| From: | Fairtile M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001060016 | |
| Download: ML19329A500 (3) | |
Text
-
j D
c/
March 6, 1978 Docket No. 50-269 j
l i
LICENSEE: DUKE POWER COMPANY FACILITY: OC0!iEE NUCLEAR STATION, UllIT N0.1 SUPfiARY OF MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 28, 1978 IN BETilESDA, MARYLAND TO DISCUSS DUKE PROPOSAL TO INCREASE ALLOWABLE FLUX TILT LIMITS I
i j
Backoround During startup tests of Cycle 4 of the Oconee Unit No. I reactor a core flux tilt, not predicted nor understood at that time, was observed. NRC issued a license amendment in ttovember 1977 restricting core operations to 100 effective full power days in order for the licensee to gain an understanding of the reasons for the tilt. The tilt has sinct decreased and the licensee cade a submittal on January 23, 1978 with an acceptable explanation of the phenomenon. By License Amen &ients dated February 17, 1970, the Oconee Nuclear Station's cormon Technical Specifications were revised to allow Cycle 4 operation of Oconee Unit No.1 past 100 effective full power days to the end of the cycle.
In the February 23, 1978 License Amendment, and the preceding flovember 1977 Amendment, IIRC approved a flux tilt limit of 3.41%.
The licensee had requested a flux tilt limit of 6.03%. Our Safety Evaluation of February 17, 1978 i;tated, "We are continuing our review of tLe 6.03% limit and are awaiting additional infomation from the i
licensee."
i Sucmary l
The licensee accoc:panied by Babcock and Wilcox, the nuclear steam system supplier of Oconee Unit No.1, presented information to the 4
i NRC staff to justify an increase the core flux tilt limit from 3.41%
L to 6.035. Duke Power (W. McCollum) discussed the plant computer I
system that monitors tilt, data reduction techniques and data available to the platit operators in regard to following flux tilt. B&W(R.Reith) described the incore monitoring system. B&W (Gary Hanson) discussed the effects of tilt on power peaking and dropped or ejected control red worths.
Curves of Change in Peak Power (%) versus Indicated Incore Tilt (%) (with uncertainties) were shown to the staff. We g
requested that the inputs used to deri a the curves be submitted with
- j
- q ;;;; : d lig= :: n ninnp fr;; L.ta t9 nece n; thq l'-it.
The i
- l ORB #4:00R
/'
MFairtile:( n
- )
- 3/~l/78
' SIRC 70R33 Ms (g76) V OE 0240
- us s. oovannessa ensomme omens sete -e,need L
8001080 O/f g
i i
2 licensee agreed to this request.
In addition the licensee agreed to include a reporting requirement in the Technical Specification
~
request if-the tilt reaches the 3.41% level.
i Morton Fairtile, Project Manager i
Operating Reactors Branch f4 l
Division of Operating Reactors i
Enclosure:
List of Attendees 4
.l 4
k l
l 1
l.
\\
I 1
vl/Rt ORihI:00R orrics >
MFairtile:( n 3/ W 78
..u,
i NBC 70828 518 (9-76) NRCM 0240 W ua s. oovsanassa emanne orriese sete -one ead
?
MEETING OF 2/28/78 g
FLUX TILT LIMITS
}
t LIST OF ATTENDEES l
Name Organization M. Fairtile NRC, 00R Bill McCollum Duke Power - Core Perf.
Ray Reith B&W, Fuel Engineering 4
P. M. Abraham Duke, Licensing i
M. M. Mendonca NRC, Reactor Safety E. R. Kane B&W, Licensing j
Charles T. Rombough B&W, Fuel Engineering Margaret Chatterton NRC, Reactor Safety y
_i Mary Gudorf B&W, Fuel Engineering i
Gary Hanson B&W, Fuel Engineering i
K. S. Canady Duke, Licensing & Projects j
Sam MacKay NRC, DOR, PSB Don Heignbors NRC, DOR Jack Rosenthal NRC, DOR, RSB Peter S. Kapo NRC, 00R, RSB d:
Paul T. Burnett NRC, Region II, Atlanta
.j Ernie Coppola B&W, Project Management M. Dunenfeld NRC, DOR RSB
["
R. R. Landry NRC,-DOR, RSB H. Richings NRC, DSS, CPB W.' Brooks NRC, DSS, CPB R. L. Gill Duke, Oconee Licensing Ragnwald Muller ACRS Staff U
- t i
f 1,
fi b
'If~
,fY 0
v I
.