ML17298A874
| ML17298A874 | |
| 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 | |
| 840221, NUDOCS 8403060451 | |
| Download: ML17298A874 (9) | |
Text
840306045k 840227 PDR ADOCK 05000528 A
PDH FEB 2 7 1984 Docket Nos.:
50-528/529 and 50-530 Hr. E. E. Van Brunt, Jr.
Vice President - Nuclear Projects Arizona Public Service Company Post Office Box 21666 Phoenix, Arizona 85036
Dear Mr. Van Brunt:
t
~
1, ~ r
'4 Distribution
<<Docljment=Control=(-50=528/529/530)
NRC PDR L PDR PRC System NSIC LB83 Reading JLee HLicitra
- Attorney, OELD EJordan JTaylor ACRS (16}
Subject:
Request for Additional Information - Palo Verde Environmental gualification Program By letters dated December 1 and 20, 1983, you provided responses to the open items regarding environmental qualfication of electrical equipment for Palo Verde.
Based on our review of the responses, we have identified the need for addi tional information to complete our review.
The specific information required is identified in the enclosed request and was discussed with members of your staff during a telephone call held on January 30, 1984.
Me request that you provide the requ.i<ed in-formation and inform us within two weeks as to when the information will be submitted.
If you have any questions regarding this request, you should contact Hanny Licitra, the Licensing Project Manager.
Sincerely,
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
See next page George Il. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No.
3 Division of Licensing OFFICEI SURNAME)
OATE P LB13:Dgf HLicitra: f G
n hton NRC FORM 318 (10/801NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 1.
- UN. GPO 1983~00.247
I~
f h
i J
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 5 Wilmer 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Mr. James M. Flenner, Chief Counsel Arizona 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, California 91770 Ms. 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
'413 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
& Strawn Suite 500 2550 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 Ms. Lynne Bernabei Government Accountability Project of the Institute for Policy Studies 1901 Que Street, NW Washington, DC 20009
(
Enclosure Request for Additional Information Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Environmental qualification Program References'
(1)
Letter from E.
E.
Van Brunt, Jr. to G. Knighton, dated December 1,
1983 (2)
Letter from E.
E.
Van Brunt, Jr. to G. Knighton, dated December 20, 1983 We have reviewed the referenced letters and require the following additional information to complete our review.
Comments 1 thru 7 are applicable to reference (1) while comments 8 thru ll pre applicable to reference (2).
Comments 12 and 13 request additional information required by the staff to complete its review.
All comments were discussed with APS personnel during a telephone call held on January 30, 1984.
2.
General Comment (2):
The staff's comment regarding arrangement of files was based on the audit review of ASCO and Rockbestos files, but is applicable to all files.
To resolve the staff's
- concern, confirm that you have reviewed all the files for proper applicability of the test report.
The DER applicable to the specific component qualification should also be referenced in the qualification file for that component.
General Comment (3):
Justification for use of power ascension as the beginning of qualified life should be provided.
3.
ASCO Solenoid Valves:
As a result of a recent test performed for the NRC by the Franklin Research
- Center, documented in NUREG/CR-3424, the staff considers that ASCO solenoid valve model NP 8316 with Ethylene Propylene elastomers may not be qualified to the environmental conditions and operating time requirement's reported in ASCO quali-fication test report AgR-67368, Rev.
1.
The staff does consider this valve model to be qualified to the levels reported in Isomedix Test Report No.
AgS 21678/TR, Rev.
A, dated March 1978, revised July 1979.
A peak qualification temperature of 340'F is documented in this report.
Review the ASCO solenoid valve qualification file and provide information to demonstrate the qualification of these valves to 370 F, which is the peak temperature condition for Palo Verde.
4.
Solenoid Va]ve for Feedwater Isolation Valve:
During the review of the qualification program of the subject valve at another NTOL plant, it was brought to the staff's attention that if the valve closure signal and peak pressure in the area where the valve is located occurred at the same time, the valve actuator will not
"2" 5.
perform its function due to insufficient differential pressure for the valve actuator to either close or close in the required time of five seconds.
Provide additional information either to show that the above concern is not applicable to Palo Verde or describe how you intend to resolve the concern.
Rotork AC Motor Operators (a):
In your response to the staff's
- concern, you have stated that stabilized conditions of 385 F and 75 psig were maintained for two hours.
Confirm that the qualifi-cation test profile enveloped the required test profile for the complete duration of the operability requirement for the component.
6.
Meed Instrumentation:
The staff requires that for a file which is classified as "review complete," all the open items should be identified.
Therefore, submit a list of all the open items for the files which are not completely qualified, together with the justi-fication for interim operation.
7.
'Barton Level andP Transmitters:
Provide the basis for considering the failure of one Barton Transmitter as a random failure, rather than common mode failure.
8.
Response
to Item 3.1(2):
Provide the qualification information for all the new items added to the program since the last submittal.
9.
Response
to It'em 3. 1(3):
Confirm that, all equipment monitoring' Regulatory Guide l. 97, Rev.
2, Category 1 or 2 variable that is installed or that will be installed prior to fuel load are environ-
.mentally qualified, or provide justification for interim operation.
- 10., Enclosure 1, Post-Flood Operability:
Confirm that
'the common mode failure of all equipment which is below the flood level has been considered in the analysis used to show that the affected equipment performs its function prior to being submerged and will not mislead the operator or degrade the safety function of some other safety-related equipment.
Justify why the concur rent failure of UV-322 and UV-332 was not considered. :
Please confirm that the surveillance requirement for electrical cable includes periodic measurement of insulation resistance of the cable insulation.
12.
Recent Sandia test results indicate; problems with terminal blocks used for instrumentation circuits due to excessive leakage current.
Provide and justify the acceptance criteria used for the qualification of terminal blocks, as.well as electrical penetrations,,
used in instrumentation circuits.
f l
,,(
13.
The staff has reviewed the 30 day post-accident operability time specified for Palo Verde and determined that all instruments required for post-accident monitoring and equipment required for long term core cooling, located inside containment, should have at least a
six month post-accident operability time requirement.
Prior to that time, the post-accident environment (radiation) inside containment will prevent replacement or maintenance of the equipment required to remain operable after 30 days.
Provide a response describing how you intend to comply with the staff's position.
li n
A
~, ~