ML19329A732
| ML19329A732 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 01/18/1973 |
| From: | Peltier I US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Rosen M US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001090718 | |
| Download: ML19329A732 (3) | |
Text
.-.
i JAN 1 8 ?)73 Docket No. 50-269 Morris Rosen, Technical Assistant to Deputy Director for Reactor Projects, L A. Schwencer, Chief. Pressurised Watar Reactors Branch Noor4WLsigned by THRU An,ert f.diwencer
SUMMARY
OF ACRS MEETING - OCONEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT 1 - OPERAT LICENSE APPLICATION Reprasentatives of the Staff met with the ACRS on January 12, 1973 concerning the status of the Oconee Nuclear Power Station Unit 1.
Items Discussed During the ACRS/ Staff Session Ceneral Items _
We informed the Consmittee that the applicant expects to be ready to 1.
load fuel in the first week in February and that there is a reasonable probability that we can resolve the outstanding matters with the applicant by this time. We indicated, therefore, that issuance of the license We noted might well occur before the February meeting of the ACRS.
that a future supplement to the SER would address all the issues. The Staf f's intent is to issue this supplement T rior to Connaittee review of the remaining Unita 2 and 3.
2.
The Committee requested that it be kept informed on our plans for site visits in the near future since the subcommittee is considering i
another visit to the Oconee site.
' 3.
A nuber of the Committee raised a question as to whether the Connaittee should document their review of the additional information prior to licensing Unit 1.
Although the question appeared to be addressed to other Conraittee members, Mr. Boyd said that the Staff noted this concern and would take it into consideration.
Discussion The project manager made a presentation on the status of the reactor A.
internals redesign and modification and the resultant Technical Review
~
evaluation. During the course of the presentation the Comunittee raised MA!
.f omcc >
+
1 sunsuc >
t our>
i l
Foese AEC.He (Rev.9 53) AECM 0240 u, s, covraxuut rammo otrn i me o. asse 8001090*7/7 O
I
- JAN 18 W3 Horris Rosen i
lified some questions which could only be answered in a general or qua manner since the appropriate Technical Review representatives w unavailable for the meeting.
to have been answered satisfactorily.
d The following are the major areas of concern which could be addresse by the Staff at the meeting in only a general manner 4
One member of the Comittee asked if changes in flow conditions after the core is installed could introduce adverse effects n 1.
The Staff 9
present during the preoperational vibration tests.noted The Staff pointed out that the applicant plans to continue to monitor for loose parts by external electronic consequences.
One member of listening" systema during reactor operations.
the Connaittee appeared to be interested in means to assure that flow changes wouM not result in adverse effects.
Another member of the Connaittee asked how B&W had c vortex shedding frequencies before and after modification and 2.
on what basis did it conclude that failure induced by vortex The shedding was possible originally and now eliminated.
Staff stated that vortex shedding in calculated model tests that B&W concluded that local flow velociti put the vortex shedding frequencies in the critic By shifting the natural frequencies of the i
of the components).
new components by design B&W separated the natural frequencisa from the calculated vortex shedding frequencies.
One question was what would have happened if the core had been The Staff did not 3.
in place at the time the internals failed.
speculate on the potential danage but anticipated that the loose parts monitoring system would detect the failure.
The Staff verified for the Committee that the 5% power restriction, to be in effect until the Staff is satisfied with the adequacy f
4.
of the preoperational vibration tests, would permit the reactor to be operated at full flow.
l I
0mCE >
t
\\
SURNAME >
l
)
...i nn-- nm.a en,~ a...
DATE>
i.,. ne m a.,..m acu em l
Horris Rosen I O D3 5.
The Staff presented a table which thowed that the measured
{
stresses in the redesigned internals were well below the allowable stresses. The committee asked if B&W had compared these values against previous test data from the original internals. The Staff was not prepared to answer this question because the original internals were not instru:nented in the same mannt r or 1
to the same degree.
B.
The project m a.ager made a presentation on the status of the flow limiters which will be installed in the Oconee Unit 1 flood lines.
1.
The Committee's main concerned appeared to be whether or not the restrictors would stay in place during a LOCA after experiencing inservice environment for many years (chemical attach etc.). The Staff pointed out that it has not completed f
its review of the structural aspects of this design but that it is not unlike the thermal sleeve situation. Thermal sleeves have been approved for plants in operation.
C.
The project manager made a presentation on the status of the Staff's steamline break review. Preliminary information had been provided by the Staff ',o the ACRS but had not reached the individual Committee members by the time of the meeting. The Committee had no questions.
Original Signed by Irving A. Peltier I. A. Peltier, Project Manager Pressurized Water Reactora Branch No. 4 Directorate of Licensing ces R. C. DeYoung DISTRIBUTION D. Knuth Docket R. Tedesco Rp Reading R. R. Maccery PWR-4 Reading A. Schwencer IAPeltier J. Henderson J. Keppler 3
orncE.,
L : PWR,-4,
_L,: P 11 - 4 9LPelt
- emp ASc& cer 1/8D3 k
Form AEC.$le (Rev.9-53) AECM 0240
... 1/f/73 om.,
j:. s. oovenuaT rnorrmc orr ct : note o. eos.s s