ML19329A574
| ML19329A574 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 01/26/1972 |
| From: | Peltier I US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Deyoung R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001070571 | |
| Download: ML19329A574 (7) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - _ _ _
& ~ 1 (p l l
j i
JAN 2gy R. C. DeYoung, Assistant Director for PWRa, DRL THRU:
Albert Schwencer, Chief, PWR Branch No. 4 DRL NEETING WITH DUKE POWER COMPANY CONCERNING REVIEW OF THE LICENSE APPLICATION POR OCONEE UNITS NOS. 1, 2, and 3 DOCKET i
NOS. 50-269/270/287 Enclosed is a sunnary of the meeting held on January 19, 1972 with Duke Power Company. An attendance lis;
. also enclosed.
~
/s/
I. A. Peltier, Project Leader PUR Branch No. 4 I
Division of Reactor Licensing
Enclosures:
i I
1.
Meeting Summary 2.
Attendance List DISTRIBUTION Docket CLong DRL Reading DMuller PWR-4 Reading KGoller PAMorrris RWKlecke r--
.PSchroeder CO (2)
TRWilson FWKaras RSBoyd IAPeltier RCDeYoung RPollard DJSkovholt OPArr HRDenton JHenderson ECCase-VThomas '-
RRMaccary T'1% O CRESS DRL:PWR-4 DRL:PWR-4 N12,010 U -I
~~ y -~
g
~~
j 1/24/7 Q g IAPeltier:dp ASchwencer d
1/M /72 1/ /72 q
Pom AEC-SIS (Rev,9-:,5) AECM OMO e u s cowsmaa mwns.o ma t,n -44e-t54 80010h0 [ 7 /
g
~_
h-ENCIDSURE NO.1 DUKE POWER CORPORATION - OCONEE UNITS 1, 2. AND 3 DOCKET NOS.'50/269/270/287
SUMMARY
OF MEETING - JANUARY 19, 1972 Stammary A meeting with Duke Power Company was held in Bethesda an January 19, 1972,. to discuss the steps being taken by Duke to improve the instrument f
'and' control cable installation in Occnee Unit No. I and the steps to be takan by Duke to assure that the original cable separation criteria are met in Units Nos. 2 and 3.
Principal concern is that in REG's opinion Duke has violated the cable separation criteria contained in the FSAR on Unit 1 but Duke feels that it met the criteria by using armored rable and by running redundant safety cables in separate trays. Duke is making improvements in the Unit 1 installation by adding fire barriers where separation is three inches or less and will institute a temperature (cable) monitoring program of limited duration but including full power operation conditions. Duke will cosmit, by PSAR change, to meeting the original separation criteria in Units 2 and 3 and has started to widen cable trays, provide different means for routing vertical cables, and devised a system for separating safety cables from others in the trays in Unit No. 2.
Discussion 1.
Unit No. 1.
Duka admitted the overfill situation and blamed an I
unanticipated increase in the number of cables as the job progressed and vorh==nahip problems due to outside contractor personnel for the situation, but felt that, considering their exclusive use of armored cables, the criteria'for-separation had been met. However, there i
-is no documented justification that armored cable satisfies the original criteria. As a partial cure, Duke is installing " Clastic,"-
a flame retardant glass polyester, as a fire barrier in all areas ubera cable separation between vertically adjacent trays is less -
.than three inches.
~
a A
0FFIm >
F
\\K -
. gy
?-
7;
,, _ 4 w ac m in..-m ucu w p y,
,_m,,,,,,,-...
/
_. e t.
m,1
l 2-Duka will taka a look at the seismic situation resulting front adding the weight of the barriers (probably insignificant). Duke will institute a temperature measuring program to monitor cable tempera-tures during initial startup and at other times, such as full power operation, adverse air conditioning situations in the cable spreading room, etc. Details of the program were not firm but there was soma discussion of the program being in effect during the first year of operation and periodically thereafter to assure that normal and abnormal operating conditions will not cause undue heating. A program of reason-able but limited tima duration is preferred by Duke.
Duke had decided against extending the side rails on the Unit 1 rrays to meet the fill criteria. We agreed noting that, while it would not accomplish anything positive, it tended to reduce ventilation and cable accessibility.
I
~
Duke will modify the'FSAR to reflect the actual installation changes i
~
and to commait that a temperature monitoring program will be instituted for the overfilled areas. Details of the tersperatura monitoring program will be provided to the Division of Compliance for onsite inspection prior to its implementation.
2.
Units Nos. 2 and 3.
Changes being made to Unit I would not be appro-priate for Units 2 and 3 and so it was agreed that Duke would state the criteria for Units 2 and 3 in the PSAR. Essentially this would be maintaining the minimum five inch separation between cable trays (clearance between side rails) and no fill above the tray rails throughout the plant.
3.
Schedules. Duke stated that the earliest date it would be able to load fuel in Unit 1 is April 1, 1972.
(A more realistic date is May 1, 1972.)
The target date for fuel loading in Unit 2 is December 1972 with commer-cial operation to begin in February 1973.
,".i
=
OrfMX >
, 4 -
N>
- e u_. ~.
om>
Form ABC-Ste (Rev.9-53) ABCM 0240 e u s oovanomerwt r=wetwee omes.. t oy s.4 : s.4e e k.
y
.--m
_m--.
y_-
-. ~..
INCLOSL 2 NO. 2 ATTENDANCE LIST OCONEE UNITS NOS. 1. 2. AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50/269/270/287 JANUARY 19.~1972 Duke Power Company P. Barton C. Wylie K. Canady J. Hall AEC - DRL/DRS/00_
A. Schwencer, DRL R. Pollard, DRS
- 0. Parr, DEL I. Peltier, DRL J. Henderson, CO V. Thamme, CO C. Murphy, CO:II I
omer >
-y i _, q',
f, y;;~
Y'
,~
r j
sunmur >
<~.m
.c p.
-.L......
sets ase.4ee am >
- u s covtsnwnw? Pnestema orect pesus ABC-Ste (Rev,S 33) AECM 0240 k
.