ML17298A872

Requests Addl Info Needed to Complete Evaluations of & Fixes for Reactor Coolant Pump Problems Encountered During Hot Functional Testing.Response Requested within 2 Wks

ML17298A872
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	02/27/1984
From:	Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Van Brunt E ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR
References
NUDOCS 8403060429
Download: ML17298A872 (4)

Text

'<<~ ~

8403060429 840227 PDR ADOCK 05000528 8

PDR Docket Nos.:

50-528/529 and 50-530 Mr. E. E.

Van Brunt, Jr.

Vice President - Nuclear Pro)ects Arizona Public Service Company Post Office Box 21666

'hoenix, Arizona 85036

Dear Mr. Van Brunt:

Distribution document=Control=(-50=528/529/530')

NRC PDR F~~ 8 P 584 L PDR PRC System NSIC LB¹3 Reading MLicitra

Attorney, OELD EJordan JTaylor ACRS (16)

Subject:

Request for Additional Information - Palo Verde Reactor Coolant Pumps By letter dated January 27, 1984, you provided an Interim Report relating to the evaluations of, and fixes for, the Palo Verde reactor coolant pump problems encountered during hot functional testing.

As a result of our review of this matter, we have determined the need for additional information in order to complete our assessment.

The specific information needed is identified in the enclosed request.

We request that you provide responses to the enclosed questions and advise us within two weeks as to when the information will be provided.

If you have any questions regarding this request, you should contact Nanny Licitra, the Licensing Project Manager.

Sincerely, Oilgtmt stoned by:

George 8. IOdyNie

Enclosure:

As stated George W. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No.

3 Division of Licensing cc:

See next page OFFICE/

SURNAME/

DATEIII LB¹3:DL&

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~

~

MLicitra: f G

ghton

~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

..Z.!Ik(II4.......k!2)!~4...

NRC FORM 318 (10/80) NRCM 0240 OFF)clAL RECORD COPY

• ua.

w weem.

~

. 9 '.fw A.

a > EmN'

I'.h i

J

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 5 Wilmer 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Hr. James H. Flenner, Chief Counsel'rizona Corporation Commission 1200 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Charles R. Kocher, Esq. Assistant Counsel James A. Boeletto, Esq.

Southern California Edison Company P. 0.

Box 800

Rosemead, Cal ifornia 91770 Hs. 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 Hs. Patricia Lee Hourihan 6413 S. 26th Street Phoenix, Arizona 85040 Regional Administrator - Region V

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1450 Maria Lane Suite 210 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Kenneth Berlin, Esq.

Winston 5 Strawn Suite 500 2550 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 Ms. Lynne Bernabei Government Accpuntability Project of the Institute for Policy Studies 1901 Que Street, NW Washington, DC 20009

~ '

~

Enclosure Palo Verde Reactor Coolant Pum uestions t

2.

Testin of the Modified Pum s.

Will the demonstration testing be of sufficient time to 'subject the parts which previously failed to an adequate number of fatigue cycles?

Will the demonstration testing subject each pump to at least the maximum time at runout (maximum flow) which any pump saw during the original hot functional testing?

In the verification testing of the pump design changes did the prototype pump see at least as much time at runout as the original design verification?

How do you know that this is a sufficient time at runout to surface any problems in the design?

Will the number of pump starts/stops in the demonstration testing be at least equal to those seen in the original hot functional testing?

Im eller Desi n Chan es.

In addition to tighter inspection of dimensions in the high stress area of the impeller blades, do you intend to increase the quality control and inspection of the impeller castings to control strength properties, inperfections in the castings, weld repairs, etc.?

How was the impeller blade safety factor of 1.5 arrived at?

Was 'this safety margin calculated with respect to the thinnest blade which failed?

What safety margin exist at the thinnest blade dimensions allowed by the new inspection procedures.

In Section 4.2..5 of the interim

report, was the contribution of the reduction in impeller/diffuser blade passing loading 10K or 25K to the safety margin of 1.5?

How was the effect of casting imperfections t'aken into account in the safety factor of 1.5?

3.

.KSB Model Testin The interim report stated that KSB model tests showed a reduction of the potential for cavitation "damage with the increased impeller vane to diffuser vane gap during operation at the low temperature runout flowrate condition.

Is there a quantitative measure of this reduction?

If so, what is it?

Is some cavitation

'or cavitiation damage still expected to occur with the new design at these conditions?

Were there any visual cavitation marks on the modified pump after testing at Newington?

4 CE-KSB Testin at Newin ton.

Were the pressure pulsations from the pump discharge reduced by the design changes made to the pump?

If so, by how much?

Was the pulsation frequency changed?

If so, by how much?