ML17297B821

Summary of 821020 Meeting w/util,C-E & Bechtel in Bethesda, MD Re Pipe Whip Restraints

ML17297B821
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	11/18/1982
From:	Licitra E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8212010448
Download: ML17297B821 (10)

Text

~

~

v ia N0v l 8 'ASS Docket Nos.:

50-528, 50-529 and 50-530 APPLICANT:

Arizona Public Service Company FACILITY:

Palo Verde, Units 1, 2 and 3

SUMMARY

OF MEETING TO DISCUSS PIPE W8IP RESTRAINTS FOR PALO VERDE A meeting was held on October 20, 1982 in Bethesda, Maryland to discuss pipe whip restraints.

The applicant requested the meeting to exchange information with the staff on the need for these restraints.

Attendees for the meeting are listed in Enclosure 1.

The meeting is summarized as follows.

COW Q)nlrb

, HIQL, wd nrd mlQ R

Wd dQ de Ol, AIQ GIILCC Summary The applicant and its NSSS supplier (CE) presented a history of development of the current pipe break criteria.

These criteria include postulation of guillotine pipe breaks in the main loop piping of the reactor coolant system.

As a result, restraints are included in the plant design bases to prevent pipe whipping.

The applicant pointed out that recent analyses of a ltestinghouse PllR (Zion I, NUREG/CR-2189) have shown that:

1.

The probability of guillotine failures are extreme'ly small (10 'or the design life of the facility).

Z.

A through-the-wall crack of detectable size will remain stable when subjected to an SSE.

In addition, an analysis of the Palo Verde Plant is being conducted "by Lawrence Livermore Laboratories (LLL) to define the probability of a guillotine rupture for a Combustion Engineering PIJR.

The applicant expects that the results of LLL's analysis of Palo Verde will be similar to those obtained with the 'llestinghouse PWR.

If so, the applicant states that the results may dismiss the need for pipe whip restraints on the Palo Verde primary piping.

The applicant stated that significant benefits will be achieved if it can be determined that pipe whip restraints are not required.

These benefits are as follows:

\\

1.

substantial cost savings

{material and installation costs).

OFFICEI SURNAME/

DATE/

2.

reducti

~ ~ ~ ~ Oa ~ a ~aging 1 (I

~tN

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ aaa ~a<Ooeg)OI

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

n in personn

-TOffgVV"1'uItU

-access-Co-p 1 exposures Ih pl'pe IIhTp pe-we>ds)-

'ince period

're'st"raint s"'t c in-service inspections be removed nd replaced NRCFOAMEIS(50-80) NRCM0240 'FFICIALRECORD COPY USGPO: 1981~r960

~ 0 I

1 h(

I,-.Iklg 'I'

l<e informed the applicant that the staff has been evaluating the need for pipe whip restraints and is aware of the ana'Iyses that were performed on Westinghouse PHRs.

Any proposed changes in the design bases regarding these restraints would need to be reviewed with NRR management,

ACRS, CRGR and the Commission.

In order to assist the staff in its evaluation, we encouraged the applicant to provide any information which (1) clearly indicates that leaks can be detected before they could result in a pipe

break, and (2) gives estimates of the potential reduction in radiation exposures and costs if the restraints can be eliminated.

The applicant indicated that it would provide such information.

E. A. Lfcftra, Project Hanager Licensing Branch No.

3 Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

List of Attendees cc:

See next page OFFICEI SURNAME$

DATE$

~ 00 ~ 000 0/

~

~

~ 0 ~ 0 ~

1 C 1 PBi'i'f'-'/82--'7

~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~

n I

~ 0le

~0/~0 ~ ~ 0 ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~

~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~

~ 0

~ 00 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~

0 ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 00 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~\\ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~\\ ~

~

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~

~

NRG FORM 318 (1040) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL R ECOR D COPY

'SQPO: 1981~980

t

Palo Verde Mr. E.

E.

Van Brunt, Jr.

Vice President - Nuclear Projects Arizona Public Service Company P. 0.

Box 21666 Phoenix, Arizona 85036 Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.

Snell

& Wilmer 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Charles S. Pierson Assistant Attorney General 200 State Capitol 1700 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Charles R. Kocher, Esq., Assistant Counsel James A. Boeletto, Esq.

Southern California Edison Company P. O..Box 800

Rosemead, California 91770

.Regional Adminstrator-Region V

.U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1450 Maria Lane Suite 210 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Vs Margaret Walker Deputy Director of. Energy Programs Economic Planning and Development Office 1700-West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Mr. Rand.L. Greenfield Assistant Attorney General Bataan Memorial Building Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503 Resident. Inspector Palo Verde/NPS U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.

0.

Box 21324 Phoenix. Arizona 85001 Ms..Patricia Lee Hourihan 6413 S. 26th Street Phoenix, Arizona Lynpe A. Bernabei, Esq.

Harmon

& Weiss

'725 I Street, N.

W.

Suite 506 Washington, D.

C.

20006

g<< ~

Meetin Attendees NRC Staff E. A. Licitra W. J.

Hazelton Shou-nien Hou R.

W. Klecker CE C.

B. Brinkman D. J. Ayres T.

E. Natan M. F. Barnoski Bechtel S.

H. Shepherd David E. Peyton APS Mike Winsor Terry quan

0

~

~ ~

~

~,

41 4

MEETING SUtlflARY Document Control (50- 528~

529 530 RC PDR L PDR NSIC TERA-LB<3 Read J.

Lee G. Knighton project ganager EALicitra

Attorney, OELD E. L. Jordon Regional Administrator, Region V

J.

M. Taylor PARTI CI PANTS NRC:

EALicitra WJHazelton Shou-nien Hou R.

W. Klecker

~

~

v w '}