ML19329A506
| ML19329A506 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 11/12/1974 |
| From: | Stello V US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Goller K US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| 1160, NUDOCS 8001060023 | |
| Download: ML19329A506 (4) | |
Text
.
P
.A 1
Docket ho. 50-269 K. R. Goller, Assistant Director for Operating Reactors, L REVIEW OF RELOAL REPORT AND REVISED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR OCONEE 1 (TAR-1160)
Plant Name:
Oconea, Unit 1 Docket No.:
50-269 Responsible Branch ORB-1 and Project Manger:
L. McDonough Technical Review Branch Involved: Core Performance Branch Requested Completion
- Le:
October 25, 1974 Description of Review Evaluation of proposed changes to i
Technical Specifications for Oconee 1 Reload (Cycle 2) and the i
supporting document (BAW-1409)
-Duke Power Company has subciitted proposed Technical Specification changes for the first reload of Oconee Unit 1 with a supporting B&W report (BAW-1409).
In response to a Technical A:sistant hequest from Operating Reactors Branch, the following coccients and quecions are submitted.
The submittal was reviewed with parti'ular attention to the areas of revised l
safety analyses, desiEn criteria and safety margins, adherence to both the l
Interim and Final Acceptance Criteria, changes in the Technical Specifications, and generic considerations (e.g., fuel dennification). The following l
statements su=marize the results of our review.
Report EAW-1409 discusses the reanalysis of the two limiting accidents of Cycle 1 - rod ejection and LOCA.
The staff has determined in telephone I'
conversations with the applicant and the vendor that all accidents were considered for Cycle 2, but were not reported since the input parameters for these accidents changed in a manner which increased the margin of safety,
compared to the Cycle 1 analysis. We conclude that the safety analyses are l
acceptable provided that satisfactory responses are forthcoming from the l
applicant to the cocclents in the enclosure.
l-f' b
]
t orrecE P
.oRN.N. h paes >
perma N318 (Rev. 9-5S) AECM 0240 W u. s. oovERNMENT PRINTING OFFICES 9974 586-108 8001060C N
[
hoy if M74 !
K. R. Coller A verbal comitment has been given by the vendor and the applicant to provide assurance that both the Interi::r and Final Acceptance Cr Provision of such assurance the restrictions of both sets of criteria.
f' will be satisfactory evidence of compliance with this requirecent.
j Technical Specification changes have been reviewed and are found to be 1
acceptable provided that satisfactory responses are forthcoming to the concents in the enclosure.
The densification analysis presented in E1W-1409 is found to be acceptable provided that satisfactor y responses are given to the coraents in the
]
enclosure.
Originni Signed W 1
yictor Stello f
Victor Stello, Jr., Assistant Director for Beactor Saiety i
Directorate of Licensing Enclosure :
Request for Additional Inforwation Distribution:
Docket files F.$*c"hroeder CPB Reading o
A. Gia=busso L Reading W. licDonald V. Stello R. Purple L. McDonouSh D. Boss
.P. Check S. Varga E. Leins W. Brooks l
l A
AD/
_CPB_,k C(B CPB-VSt PCh c DRos WBrooks;bj _
11/l
_11/5/74.
. 11/[/74 116= /74
._ l W u.e.novsanssent enmtme orricsa so74.sas.see omva >
Eeren ABC 518 (Rev. P.SS) ABCM O240
iy.
I l-!
ENCLOSURE Request for Additional Informaticn i-
-[
1 BAW-1801
-[
)
It is not clear that both the Interim Acceptance Criteria (IAC I-blishing i
and Final Acceptance Criteria (Fl.C) were considered in estaDuring th l'.
.j the proposed operating and safety limits.
is necessary
- staff is reviewing the B&W /ICCS evaluation model, it derived to operate within the limits of Techpical SpecificationsProvide assu i
from both IAC and FAC analyses.
of criteria have been considered in the dete.rmination
}
Oconee Unit 1 reload Technical Specifications.
moderator' coefficient at H?P are too low in 1
1 d
2.
i tion
}
by a factor of 100 due to the presence of a super"luous % des g Provide a revised Table 2.2.
1 in the units of these quantities.
f Table 2.3 is confusing in that some of the worth reduction values are given in terms of the amount to be subtracted and others are 3
given in terms of the worth after the reduction has been made, I
Provide
- a revised Table 2.3 to remove the ambiguity.
{j In view of the lower boron worth in Cycle 2 in comparison to that in Cycle 1, provide assurance that the reactivity control system 4.
still satisfies GDC-26 of 10 CFR 50, Appendix A.
Provide clarification in regard to the establis 5
Into which positions in the Why are these assemblies different?
core will these assemblies be placed?
j e
Indicate the location of the bottom of the fuel stack on Figures 8
l 6.
31 and 3 2.
Incicate the meaning of the dashed line marked " Powe 7.
Cutoff" on Figure 3 5.
as the maximum operating power.
Clarify the status of the hashed area (i.e, " restricted or 8 '.
permissible") on Figure 3 6.
I l
4; me'sm.";
e
)
~_.
i l
f-l
}
9 Provide separate 2-and 3-pump withcrawal limits on the left side
~
i of Figure 3 7, or if these limits are identical, so indicate.
I 10.
Provide a comparisen of maximum predicted axial, radial, local, l
and overall nuclear peaking factors between Cycle 1 and Cycle 2.
t i
j 11.
Since this first reload for the Oconee class of reactors, provide a ec mittent to submit a report on the results of the startup i
physics tests.
i PROPOSED TECENICAL SPECIFICATIONS l
12.
In Section 2.1, the manner in which the W-3 and BAW-2 correlations are used to establish DNBR limits are unclear.
The bulk of this section asserts that the W-3 correlation with a DNBR limit of 1 3 was used for Oconee Units 1, 2, and 3 The last paragraph ac 'erts that the BAW-2 correlation with a DNBR limit of 1.32 was
,1-us.d for Oconee Unit 1.
Provide clarification of this contradiction.
13 Correct the eighth line from the bottom in the last paragraph of Section 2.1.
This line should read "....... level that DNB will li not."
14 Clearly indicate on each figure (Figures 2.1-1A, 2.1-3A, 2.3-1A, and 3 5.2-3A) which are the operating regions and which the restricted regions.
15.
Indicate the meaning of the dashed line labeled " Power Level Cutoff" in Figure 3.5 2-1A1.
I e
t 4
4 5
- ~. -.....
y