ML17298A267
| ML17298A267 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 03/14/1983 |
| From: | Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Van Brunt E ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8303290737 | |
| Download: ML17298A267 (8) | |
Text
0 MAR l.4 1983 Docket Hos.:
50-528, 50-529 and 50-530 ter.
E.
E. Van Brunt, Jr.
Vice President - Nuclear Projects Arizona Public Service Company Post Office Box 21666 Phoenix, Arizona 85036
Dear Van Brunt:
DISTRIBUTION Document Control 50-528/529/530 NRC PDR L PDR NSIC PRC System LBk'3 Reading JLee EAI icitra
- Attorney, OELD TNNovak
- Jordan, IE
Subject:
Request for Addi;tional Information - Palo Verde By letter dated February 7, 1983, you submitted the Palo Verde Environmental gualification Report.
The staff has reviewed the report and has determined that additional'nformation is required.
The specific information needed is described in Enclosure 1 and has been discussed with your staff at a meeting held on March 9, 1983.
le request that you provide the information described in Enclosure 1.
Unless stated otherwise, the response to the specific items in the enclosure should be provided prior to the site audit on environmental qualification tentatikely planned for the end of April 1983.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact tyranny Licitra, the Licensing Project Manager Sincerely,
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
See next page ORIGll@Q, QQQQ) gy George H. Knight/n, Chief Licensing Branch No.
3 Division of Licensing r
SiOSav07S7 aaoi<4 PDR ADQCK 05000528 A
PDR DL:LB83 EALicitrafyt "3/jj'/83""-"
OFFICE/
SURNAME/
DATE$
NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 DL:LB GM3(
83 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY USGPO: 1981 335.960
P Ver de Mr. E.
E.
Van Brunt, Jr.
Vice President - Nuclear Projects Arizona Public Service Company P. 0.
Box 21666 Phoenix, Arizona 85036 CC:
Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
Snell 5 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.
0.
Box 800
- Rosemead, California 91770 Regional~dminstrator-Region V
U. S.
Huc1ear Regulatory Commission 1450 Maria Lane Suite 210 Walnut Creek, Cali fornia 94596 Kenneth Berlin, Esq.
Winston E Strawn Suite 500 2550 M Street, N.
H.
Washington, D. C.
20037 t!'s. Harqaret 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 ST 26th Street
- Phoenix, Arizona 85040 Lynne A. Bernabei, Esq.
Harmon E Heiss 1725 I Street, N.
W.
Suite 506 Washington, D.
C.
20006
Enclosure 1
Request for Additional Informati on A review of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Environmental qualification Report indicated the following areas of concern.
Arizona Pulic Service Company (APS) commits to interim justification prior to power escalation above 5X of full power.
- However, 10 CFR 50.49(i) requires this prior to operating license issuance.
The information is required 60 days prior to operating license issuance.
2.
For Environmental Designator III, the 318'F temperature extreme is stated to apply to Class 1E cable only.
An explanation is required why this temperature extreme is not applied to other equipment in the same area.
3.
Note (b) page
- 4. 1-146 states that subcompartments below 100'levation are unaffected by the HSSS Design Basis Pipe Break.
Can they be affected by other HELBS.
An explanation should be supp.1 j ed.
4.
5'.
Section 3.3 does
~ot explain the derivation of the qualification level of 3.3 x 10 rads gamma for Environmental Designator 1,
Table 4.1-,3.
Provide an explanation for differences between Tables 4.1-3 and 3.3-5.
The 30 day dose given in Ta)le 3.3-6 is 6.4 x 10 rads
- gamma, 6
yet Table 4.1-3 uses 1 x 10 rads gamma as a qualification parameter.
Explain this apparent inconsistency.
Section 3.6 supplies no description of accelerated aging methodology.
A description of the procedures used should be provided.
The chemical spray parameters listed in Table 4. 1-3 and the very brief explanation in Section 3.8 contains no explanation of the method used to determine the spray concentration..
Provide this explanation and demonstrate conformance to NUREG-0588, Section 1.3.
Appendix B 'is apparently for BOP items only.
Supply the checklist that NSSS items are reviewed with.
9.
If any out of containment areas other than Environmental Designators II, III, and VI see any radiation due to a DBA, supply a justification for exclusion. of other areas from harsh environment designation..
~ '
r II 10.
If any NSSS or BOP supplied equipment is utilizing thermal equivalence analysis (see CENPD-225 Revision 3), supply an example for a specific equipment item.
12.
13.
The maximum operability time designated for any equipment is 30 days.
Justify this low value.
It.is unclear how. the values for temperature and radiation for Environmental Designator II were arrived at.
Supply an expl.anation.
(Please include the temperature profile used to determine the requirement.
Compliance with the rule on the environmental qualification 10 CFR 50.49 especially with equipment important to safety (para.
b(2))
and equipment required by R. G.
- 1. 97, Rev.
2 (para.
b(3)) and a
statement that all safety-related component located in the harsh environment (para. b(i)) should be included in the qualification program.
This should include equipment for required for NELB, spent fuel handling accident, etc.
(Required 60 days prior to OL).
. 14.
Comparison of the systems list included in the Eg program with the list provided in Table 3.2-1 of the FSAR.
Any omission should be justified.
15.
16.
The category qualified (pending) is defined as the review is in progress and the documentation is not complete.
The review of 85% of the files should be completed with only retest, re-locate or modification as, the resolution of the open item.
Provide the open item listing for all the packages defined as qualified (pending) and their resolutions with the scheduled date for completing the qualification.
FSAR Table 6.2. 1-9 shows that, for reactor at 102% power and for 8.75 ft.
HSLB break with the loss of one cooling train, the peak containment temperature is
= 401'F.
The Eg report shows only 370'F.
Explain.
17.
18.
Radiation environment (Section 3.3) appears to be low as compared to the plant with the similar design.
During the last telephone conversation the staff has asked to provide basis, assumption and sample calculation to determine the acceptability of the radiation dose.
Also if any place, credit is taken because of the location of the equipment a sample calculation with the basis and assumption should be provided.
Section 3.2-4 is missing~ancl'.should be addressed.
19.
20.
Reference to R.G.
1.33 Rev.
2 and ANS-3.2/ANSI N18.7-1976 in Appendix A should be. added.
Difference between the spray environment during testing vs.
required should be explained and the basis for acceptance should be provided.
21.'rom the submittal it is unclear whether.the field verification of equipment was performed.
22.
Confirm that accuracy and response time requirement was considered for all the applicable equipment
- e. g. transmitters, switches etc.
23.
Provide the list of equipment below submergence and discuss the qualification for submergence.
If this question has been answered before provide the reference to the question and answer.
24.
Explain why the Fig., 3. 2-4 peaks to only 325'F and then drops to 250'F in 2 minutes.
Is this only one of the spectrums of breaks or this is the most limiting one?
25.
In discussion of the drainage system in FSAR Section 9.3:3.2, credit has been taken for the level switches and pumps for the flood pro-tection.
Confirm that these equipments are included in the quali-fication program.
Also credit has been taken for the check valves.
to avoid flooding because of the backflow.
Please confirm that these check valves are safety-related and are included in your gA program.
26.
Provide a list of TtlI Action Plan equipment i n your program by it' I.D.
number.
Provide the. qualification status of the TMI items which require qualification but are not in the qualification program at the present time.
(Required within two weeks after the audit);
27.
In many status sheet (813, 15 etc.) the environmental parameter is not enveloped by the test and the status is defined as quali-fied without any explanation.
Provide the explanation.
e l
,r.
s>
)r
~ ~
A rq L
li h
1 t
J- '0%
~ ')
I'I 1
wJ-III I'
'ic