ML20050B556
| ML20050B556 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1982 |
| From: | Clayton F ALABAMA POWER CO. |
| To: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-2.D.1, TASK-TM NUDOCS 8204060041 | |
| Download: ML20050B556 (3) | |
Text
,
Malling Address Alatama Power Company 600 North 18th Stre et Post Othce Box 2r,41 0:rrningham, Alabama 35291 Telephone 205 7834081 2
F. L. Clayton, Jr.
b Rn";rJ2;;7"'
Alabama Power ilM1 SWAhCfn thC!TC S/5fPin April 1, 1982 Docket Nos. 50-348 50-364 Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation O
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission n'
\\0 Washington, D. C.
20555 s;
3 193g 2 Attention:
Mr. S. A. Varga
'd y'
3 C
' /[
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant - Units 1 and x
NUREG-0737, Item II.D.1 Y^,
,u Performance Testing of Pressurized Water Reactor Relief and Safety Valves Gentlemen:
In response to your letter of September 29, 1981 and to the requirements of NUREG-0737, Item II.D.1, requesting each Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) utility on or before April 1, 1982 to submit a preliminary evaluation, supported by test results, which demonstrates the capability of relief and safety valves to operate under expected operating and accident conditions, the following is submitted.
Alabama Power Company is a participant in the Generic PWR Safety and Relief Valve Test program implemented by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) at the request of participating PWR utilities in response to NRC recommendations fcr safety and relief valve testing.
The primary objective of the tast program was to provide full scale test data confirming the operability of primary system Power Operated Relief Valves (P0dV's) and Safety Valves for expected operating and accident conditions.
The second objective of the program was to obtain suf ficient piping thermal hydraulic load data to permit confirmation of models which may be utilized for plant specific analysis of safety and relief valve discharge piping systems.
PORV testing was completed in August 1981 and Safety Valve testing was completed in December 1981.
The reports prepared by EPRI documenting the test program results are as follows:
" Valve Selection / Justifici tion Report" - This O
report documents that the SE ected test valves y
represent all participating PWR plant safety and relief valves.
O f
8204060041 820401 DR ADOCK 05000348 PDR
- = = = -
/
i.
Mr. S. A. Varga April 1,1982 Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation Page 2 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
" Test Condition Justification Report" and the
" Westinghouse Plant Condition Justification Report" - These reports document the basis and justification of the valve test conditions for all participating PWR plants.
" Safety and Relief Valve Test Report" - This report provides evidence demonstrating the functionability of the selected test valve under the selected test conditions for all participating PWR plants.
" Application of RELAP 5/M001 for Calculation of Safety and Relief Valve Discharge Piping Hydrodynamic Loads" - This report presents an analytical model benchmarked against test data l
that may be used for plant unique analysis of safety and relief valve discharge piping system.
All of these documents have been received by Alabama Power Company-and were transmitted to the NRC by Mr. David Hoffman of Consumers Power Company on behalf of tne participating PWR utilities in response to the April 1,1982 preliminary submittal requirement.
In addition to providing the referenced reports, Alabama Power I
Company has performed a preliminary review of the test program results.
Based on our review, we have concluded that the valves tested by EPRI represent the Farley Nuclear Plant Safety and Relief Valve designs and that the conditions tested envelope the range of expected operating and accident conditions for the Joseph M. Farley Units 1 and 2.
Fron our preliminary review of the generic test program results, we believe that the adequacy of the Farley Nuclear Plant Safety and Relief Valves has been confirmed and that the anomalies associated with the test results of the Safety Valves do not represent a major safety problem.
We expect that these anomalies can be resolved by further analysis in a timely manner.
The September 29, 1981 NRC letter requested that plant specific final evaluations be submitted by July 1, 1982.
The referenced EPRI test reports provide the evidence required by NUREG
- 0737, Item II.D.1, which will be used to perform the final plant specific evaluations.
In order to meet that date, evaluations have been initiated.
Depending upon the outcome of the evaluar'.sns, it may be necessary to continue some evaluations beyond July 1, 1982.
Alabama Power Company will advise the NRC on or before July 1, 1982 if a longer evaluation period will be required.
at Mr. S. A. Varga April 1, 1982 Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation Page 3 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission If you have any questions, please advise.
Yours very truly, k
F. L. Clayt
,J.
FLCJr/J4R:Jc-D7 cc:
Mr. R. A. Thomas Mr. G. F. Trowbridge Mr. J. P. O'Reilly Mr. E. A. Reeves Mr. W. H. Bradford j
i M."Il#8f.ili!!1\\
- 3::%3D SEfduRf7dCLU} (C@5L@M3?1
~
P. O. BOX 2160 0 PHOENIX, ARIZON A 85036 April 2, 1982 ANPP-20610-ACG Mr. Frank J. Miraglia, Chief.
, 9 Licensing Branch No. 3 j %p y
Division of Licensing y
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission j
.g Washington, D.C.
20555 J/
ggp -
Request for Additional Information
- ~
FED I
Subject:
c.
f Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Stati iD GE3)[f$b_ s -NS /'
1 h
"" EC f ) [/ [
Units 1, 2 and 3 Docket Nos. STN-50-528/529/530 File: 82-056-026
/
Dear Mr. Miraglia:
In response to your letter of March 27, 1982, we are enclosing a memorandum prepared by our counsel who is-familiar with Agreement No. 13904 governing the supply of wastewater effluent from the-91st Avenue Sewage Treatment Plant for use at Palo Verde and the negotiations which have been taking place respecting possible changes in that agreement.
n Very truly you C. Q.
~
C CLLt n uA E.
E.
Van Brunt, Jr.
APS Vice President, Nuclear Projects ANPP Project Director EEVBJr:ACG: jaw Enclosure OD 1 /
CK of 02 A
328 PDg
i u
cc:
Charles S.
Pierson Assistant Attorney General 200 State Capitol 1700 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Charles R.
Kocher, Esq.
James A. Beoletto, Esq.
Southern California Edison Company P.O.
Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770 Rand L.
Greenfield, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Bataan Memorial Building Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503 Resident Inspector Palo Verde /NPS U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 21324 Phoenix, Arizona 85001 Ms. Patricia Lee Hourihan 6413 S.
26th Street Phoenix, Arizona 85040 Lee Scott Dewey, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Counsel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Emanuel A.
Licitra Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of License U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Margaret Walker Deputy Director of Energy Programs Economic Planning and Development Office 1700 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 I
l
7
~
N LO MBW
^
V MEMORANDUM To:
E.
Van Brunt, Jr.
From:
Date:
April 1, 1982 Re:
NRC Staff Request for Additional Information, dated March 27, 1982 In its letter dated March 27, 1982, the NRC Staff recited the conclusion stated in its filed testimony relating to Intervenor IIourihan's contention No. 5 that "there will be sufficient usable treated municipal effluent from the 91st Avenue Plant, for operation of Units 1, 2 and 3 of PVNGS during months of peak reactor need for the first five years of operation."
The letter goes on to state that such conclu-sion was based upon the staff's understanding of the terms of Agreement No. 13904 which governs the supply of wastewater effluent to Palo Verde.
The staff's letter then refers to the portion of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Memor-andum and Order, issued March 17, 1982, in which it is noted that Mr. Bill Stephens has advised the Board that Agreement No. 13904 is being renegotiated.
On the basis of these recitals, you are requested to advise the NRC Staff "of the extent to which the current negotiations could impact the staff's assumptions or conclusions included in its testimony regarding contention No.
5."
This memorandum is submitted for the purpose of responding to this request of the NRC Staff for additional information.
First, it should be stated that Agreement No. 13904 (which is reproduced (except for signature pages] in the Draft Environmental Statement for Palo Verde Units 4 and 5 - NUREG-0522) is a valid and subsisting contract in full force and effect.
There is nothing in Agreement No. 13904 which provides for reopening or renegotiating any of its terms, and the contract cannot be amended without the agreement of all parties thereto.
Second, with respect to the recent negotiations, the elements considered have included:
a.
Changes in structure from a requirements type to a fixed quantity contract with a take-or-pay feature added.
w
};
t{
i o
,~:
m t
s i
e y
n Memorandum - E.
E. Van Brunt;.-Jr.
April 1, 1982
\\
'N.
Page Tva' s' v s s 1
i i.
1
^\\'
\\,
s
$ C b.
Concomitant with the change in' structure ' \\
}. ;
is the fight to use or resellfeffluent.
s purchased,' but not used at Palo Verde,'
I, q for' purposes other than electric' generation.
s c.
Changes in the' price to be paid for the
/
f ef fluent sold. '
d.
(Restricting the sour'ce of effluent for '
Palo Verde Units.1,.2 and 3 to the 91st s
Avenue Sewage Treatment Plant exclusivelyr 4
A e.
Changes'in theJamoont of effluent under option in,exceas.of Palo Verde needs.
4 T
J s
i f.
Extensions in,the time period when options
'(
can be exercised for effluent in excess,of 1-G' PalolVerde needs.
s' s
j 7
\\,
's
'g.
Caanges in theTcontractual restraints on'i zt the construction of satellite sewage treat-g
\\
ment plants within the drainage area served l
\\
by the S;st Avenue and 23rd Avenue Sewage.h,
'Trehtment plants.
' i' s,
l3 i
\\
s h.
Restrictions in the applicability of[Section 21 of Agreement No.'13904 to the fixel ggan-
. 1
/
s
\\
tity of ef fluent established for u'se at/ Ralo' 1-J'
' 'a N
Verde.
h'.
4
' 4.3 s
.x Of these eightselements, only (a),, (d)e,'and '(h) could t s e
have any impact on the supply of effluent to Palo Verde.
With
,/
respect to element (a), proposals made',by AMWUA would provide i
for the sale of effluent for Pa,lo Verde / Units 1,.2land 3 in the firm quantity of 66,000 acre-feee^per year, d' liverable in c
a e
equal monthly amounts,with an option to purchass ah additional,+ i firm quantity of 12,000 acre-feetsper year, also deliverable in, s}.
equal monthly amounts.
The. aggregate firm quantities of:78,000'y Nc acre-feet / year, together witt the Tolleson effluent in the amount-of 6,400 to 8,000 acre-feet / year, would :be mora 'than sufficient s
to meet the needs of Palo Verde Units 1, 2 a'nd\\ 3,' anid this ele-recent negotiations'would'not have impacted the i
ment of v
NRC Stai '
filed testimony. '
t
~
With respect to element (d), thes taf f's ytes himonyg on contention No.
5, as well as.all ocher analyses relcting to tne use of effluent for Palo Verde, have assumeA th'at oply,[91st Avenue effluent, supplemented by Tolleson' 'ctfluent, ' would be s
q.
,i s
s
\\
\\
'k n'
x, 3h, N
s' 11 i t
{l
~'
e.
s e
Memorandum - E. E. Van Brunt, Jr.
April-1, 1982
\\, -
Page Three I
used at Palo Verde.
Therefore, this element would.not have
{
impacted the staff's filed testimony.
With respect to element (h), it is self-evident that any restrictions on the applicability of Section 21 to Palo.
Verde effluent.would only serve to enhance the security of the ;
supply of effluent to Palo Verde.
Therefore, this element would not have impacted the staff's filed testimony.
Fourth, on the basis of the foregoing, in'my opinions there is nothing in' Agreement No. 13904 nor in the recent negotiations.which would impact the staff's assumptions or j
conclusions included in its testimony regarding contention No. 5 4
i a
)
)
ACG jaw I
i i
i
.