ML19329A632

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards 720816 Meeting Summary W/Util Re Industrial Security Plan,Qa Program,Thermal Stresses Induced by Operation of High Pressure Injection,Class II Fluid Sys Failure & Primary Pump Mounting
ML19329A632
Person / Time
Site: Oconee  Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 08/21/1972
From: Peltier I
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To: Deyoung R
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 8001070650
Download: ML19329A632 (3)


Text

_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

4 DISTRIBUTION:

Dockets (3)

RP Reading PWR-4 Reading Dockee Nos. 50-269 AUG2iid7g w eltier, L 50-270 and 50-287 R. C. DeYoung, Assistant Director for PWR's, L i

Origi..a...yiud 4 THRU A. Schwencer, Chief, PWR Branch No. 4, L Robert L Ferguson q/

,v

,i DUKX POWER CCHPANY - OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1, 2, & 3 j

Enclosed is a susenary of the meeting held with Bill Parker, Duke Power Company on August 16, 1972.

Original Signed by Irving.L Peltier.

Irving A. Peltiar PWR Branch No. 4 Directorata of Licensing Enclosure Meeting Summaary cc:

R. S. Boyd D. Skovbolt D. Knuth R. Maccary R. Tedeseo H. Denton PWR Branch Chiefs R. W. Kleckar M. Rosen R0 (3)

M. Service (2)

V. Nial D. Davis S. Hou QEB)

FOR CONCURRENCES SEE DOCKET NO. 50-269 cmcr >

k.; P,WR,4,,,

,,,.bH,WR-4 x7548 1 - -

sumur >..IAR.eltG.. s.t.s.. AS,chwencer oarr>l..8L18H2.,,,,

,,8/, t,,_ / 72 Form AEC-Hs (Rev.9-53) AECM 0140

c. A aovraxurx7 PacvTtwo errter ; teto o. 4cs.34e 8003070 [ [ O

3/

~ DUKE POWER COMPANY sf.

OCONEE ' NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1 2, & 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-269/270/287 14EETING

SUMMARY

- AUGUST 16,1972 Discussion Items 1.

Seismic Analysis of Jocassee Dam Spill attended).

This meeting is covered in a separatway (Hulman, Site Safety 2.

Quality Assurance Program for Operations (Hildr e report.

3.

Thermal stresses induced by operatio eth, RO, attended) system in Oconee 1 during hot functional tn of the high pressure inje 4.

es ts.

Fuci examination in the Oconee fuel attended).

storage pit (Davis, PWR-4, 5.

Primary pump mounting.

6.

Additional requests for information f rom MEB.

7.

Class II fluid system failure 8.

Industrial Security Plan (Van Niel

, OR, attended).

Summarv of Above Discussion Items

-1.

Covered by separate report.

2.

for operations program manual. Duke was looking for gu Since according to Quality Assuran Branch the proposed guide has not be models at this time. Duke was advised to cover all 18'crien develope Appendix B and.to review what other in the development of a manual.'

Duke had already reviewed the TV teria of manual.

3.

Parker was asked what Duke has done t the Oconee Unit 1 can go to Nuclear Operation safely after theo assure th inadvertent operation of the HPI system d last_ March.

know the details.He said B&W had analyzed the situatiouring hot function tes matter of record on~this matter. Duke will call to discuss wh ecome a 9

aw

m

[s ~

.Q j.

i. Parker was told that we.have received no information on the proposed

'4.

PIE 1(post irradiation (fuel] examination) program and that we (DR) look unfavorably on thesintentional violation of fuel clad in an operating reactor facility.

If Duke (and B&W)-wish to pursue this matter further it should make a formal request for our review but we discourage doing so.

Parker was not familiar with the details of the primary pump mounting.

5.

JThe system is designed so that the pumps are supported by the piping but other than seismic restraints he was not sure what other hanger arrangements exist. Duke will call on this item.

In one arca concerning the acceptance criteria and vibration testing 6.

of piping and Class I equipment a ME3 reviewer was not satisfied with Dukes response to the June 16, 1972 meeting questions.

The concerns were passed on to Parker and Duke will c.11 to' discuss them.

According to Parker Duke has made flooding calculations and determined 7.

that adequate response time exists to take protective action in the event a condenser cooling water line should rupture via the turbine building and threaten safety equipment in the auxiliary building.

These results will be discussed by phone.

.8.

Parker was cold that the informal draf t Industrial Security Plan reviewed by Van Niel is not adequate.

The areas of deficiency were given to Parker. An October 2,1972 date was set for formal submittal of the plan.

e

.._..