ML20148G860

Summary of 761103 Meeting W/Utils,Nus Co,C-E & Lowenstein, Newman,Reis & Axelrad Re Submission of Proposed Measures to Prevent Reactor Vessel Overpressurization in Operating C-E Facilities.Attendance List Encl

ML20148G860
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone, Calvert Cliffs, Palisades, Saint Lucie, Yankee Rowe, Maine Yankee, Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	11/15/1976
From:	Zech G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20148G854	List: ML20148G849 ML20148G860
References
NUDOCS 8011140196
Download: ML20148G860 (5)

Text

._ ,

(

L' '  :

O p;i $

u~,1eosr res NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y .. ,L) .,$j WASHING TON, D. C. 20555

- C

[ .

NOV 151976 l

..... . 9 DOCKETS NOS.: 50-255, 50-317, 50-285, 50-336, 54 309, AND 50-335 . . ...

LICENSEE / FACILITY: BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY (CALVERTU OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT (FT. CALHOUN) d YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY (MAINE YANKEE) W NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY (MILLSTONE UNIT NO. 2)

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (PALISADES)

~

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY (ST. LUCIE UNIT NO.1) .a

~

SUMMARY

OF MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 3,1976, CONCERNING THE SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED MEASURES TO PREVENT REACTOR VESSEL OVERPRESSURIZATION IN I OPERATING COMBUSTION ENGINEERING (PWR) FACILITIES . . . .

On November 3,1976, the staff met with representatives of PWR licensees  % -

with Combustion Engineering (CE) designed plants to discuss measures being taken to prevent reactor vessel overpressurization.

4 A list of attendees is attached. '

Sianificant Discussions are Sumarized Below We summarized the correspondence and discussions that have occurred between the staff and the CE licensees since our generic letter on

~

reactor vessel overpressurization was issued in August 1976. We re-affirmed our requirenent that the licensees must provide, by December 3,1976, a generic analysis of the transients that could occur at the CE plants ,

along with the basic design modifications that the licensees are con-sidering to provide pressure protection. The licensees indicated that .

comments on a proposed generic model will be provided to CE about November 10, 1976, and that they expect the results of the transient analysis by December 3,1976. They also indicated, however, that they had not yet determined whet design modifications would be necessary.

The transient analysis will be applicable to each of the CE licensees with the exception of Maine Yankee which intends to submit its proposals separately. We then identified the below listed criteria as clearly acceptable and stated that design deviations should be justified by presenting technical bases or installation impacts. q

[

l l 11140) .

l

.~

n Meeting Summary NOV 151976 2- g Nove:nber 3,1976

1. Credit for Operator Action - No credit can be taken for operator action until 10 minutes after the operator is aware that a pressure. transient is in progress. ~~

~..  ;

h

2. Single Failure Criteria - The pressure protection system should be designed to protect the vessel given a single failure in  ?

addition to a failure that initiated the pressure transient. " I In this area, redundant or diverse pressure protection systems would be considered as meeting the single failure criteria.

3. Testability - The equipment design should include some provision c for testing on a schedule consistent with the frequency that '

the system is used for pressure protection.

/ 4. Seismic Design and IEEE-279 Criteria - Ideally, the pressure .

protective system snould meet both seismic Category I and IEEE-279 criteria. The basic objective, however, is that the system should not_ be vulnerable to an event which both causes a pressure transient and causes a failure of equipment needed to terminate the transient.

The CE licensees indicated that they had not planned their design such that it could suffer a failure over and above the initiating event (operator error or equipment malfunction) caut #ng the pressure transient. We indicated that any derviation from tr.e single failure criteria given must be fully justified by the licensees. .

The lead times necessary for procurement of valves and other quality equipment that might be needed for design modifications were discussed. '

We requested that the licensees include in their submittals, the potential impact these lead times might have on the implementation dates of any design modifications.

~

~

Maine Yankee representatives indicated that they expect to meet their Appendix G limits with existing equipment arid would propose design '

changes after cbout five years at which tine irradiation effects on their reactor vessel would cause the Appencix G limits to be more restrictive. The staff indicated that this approach would be accept-able.

A l \

l Meeting Sunmary . gy ; 3 Igg November 3, 1976 , , , _

i The other CE li.censees who comprise the task group stated that they intend to use as their reference the Appendix G limits based on 2 to 10 Effective Full Power Years of irradiation. If the surveil-lance capsules examined in the interim require more restrictive limits for the remainder of the plants' lifetime, they would then propose additional design modifications. ,

The CE owners group members (Maine Yankee excluded) indicated that ,

they would take into consideration the criteria provided by the staff and would submit the results of the generic transient analysis by H December 3, 1976. The basic design modifications being considered to [

]

provide the pressure protection needed will also be described. The j

plant-specific analyses will commence as soon as the results of the results of the generic analysis are available and the details of each t I

plants' design modifications will then be submitted to the staff for F.

T review.

The Maine Yankee representatives indicated that they will provide the transient analysis and details of any design modifications required by "j December 3, 1976.

Each licensee provided information as to the status of implementation of the interim measures to reduce the likelihood of an overpressurization ..

3 event. For those not yet implemented, the licensees agreed to inforn their respective project managers when they were completed. In addition, the staff acreed to advise each licensee if they had questions about their interim measures, or their acceptability.

6 Gary G.

d4 ech, Project Manager Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Operating Reactors

Attachment:

List of Attendees i

D s .

a. ,:

I

~

Meeting Sumary for -

4- November 15, 1976 CE Plants .

Docket File NRC PDR

. LOCAL PDR ORB #1 Reading -

NRR Reading B. C. Rusche E. G. Case V. Stello K. R. Goller  !..

D. Eisenhut T. J. Carter i i

A. Schwencer D. Ziemann G. Lear R. Reid

.' R. Clark L. Shao . :.:

R. Baer W. Butler B. Grimes Project Manager .

Attorney, OELD OI&E (3)

S. M. Sheppard Participants (NRC)

R. Fraley, ACRS (16)

T. B. Abernathy J. R. Buchanan _

l T

- - - . ~ . . . . - ,

p. ,

. - . _ = - . .. . - . ..

.,' ;y-NRC STAFF MEETING WITH COMBUSTION ENGINEERING (PWR) LICENSEES J NOVEMBER 3,1976 ATTENDANCE LIST ~-. --. - , , . ... .,

BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY a NRC q L. J. Lehman, Jr. I G. G. Zech F R. L. Baer L. B. Russell j C. H. Berlinger R. C. L. Olson G. Lanik ..

L. B. Marsh YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY "

E. A. Reeves J. Chapman '

F. Clemenson D. K. Harding I B. Hardin R. P. Shone '

B. Buckley G. Kingston R. Gamble P. L. Anderson R. Silver J. Matzetis CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY J. E. Ouzts J. A. Dyer -

D. A. Bixel  ;'

D. M. Elliott D. P. Hoffman OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY K. J. Morris C. S. Pillar D. D. Wittke N. Rar6ek . .

M. Schoppman NUSCO COMBUSTION ENGINEERING B. 11bermann P. Santoro P. W. Kruse W. E. Terry L. Fitch M. Kupinski R. S. Dalcas J. J. Kelley J. R. Luttrell F. G. King J. Olsen LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS & AXELRAD

~

M. A. Bauser l

.; y,.  ; ,

~ . . . .

e