ML17298B347
| ML17298B347 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 10/04/1984 |
| From: | Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Van Brunt E ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8410170185 | |
| Download: ML17298B347 (8) | |
Text
Docket Nos.:
50-528, 50-529 and 50-530 Mr. E.
E.
Van Brunt, Jr.
Vice President - Nuclear Projects Arizona Public Service Company Post OfficeBox 21666
- Phoenix, Arizona 85036 DISTRIBUTION
-55=52575'2'57555 ~
NRC P0R Local PDR NSIC LB¹3 Reading JLee EALicitra NGr ace EJordan
- Attorney, OELD
Dear Mr. Van Brunt:
ACRS (16)
Subject:
Request for Additional Information -'alo Verde Control Room Design Review As a result of our review of the Palo Verde control room design, as it relates to a preliminary design assessment (PDA), the staff has identified the need for additional information.
The specific information required is identified in the enclosed status report of the staff's review which will be included in the next
'supplement to the Palo Verde SER.
As noted in the enclosure, the three areas where additional information is required, for the PDA review are (1) correction of the human engineering discrepancies, (2) status of the environmental
- survey, and (3) review of remote shutdown panel.
We request that you provide the required information in these areas at least 30 days prior to licensing for Palo Verde Unit 1.
To expedite the review, the staff has scheduled a control room audit for October 10 and ll, 1984 to cover these areas.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, you should contact Nanny Licitra, the Licensing Project Manager.
Sincerely,
Enclosure:
As stated George W. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No.
3 Division of Licensing cc:
See next page DL:LB¹3 DL EALicitra yt GW, sghton 10/g/84 10/f /84 84ioi70i85 84i004 PDR ADOCK 05000528 A
) w F
FV fgwt J
~
4 v
'I II VII V
F <<wg w
It m
)wry I
m
Palo Verde Mr. E.
E.
Van Brunt, Jr.
Vice President - Nuclear Projects Arizona Public Service Company P. 0.
Box 21666
.- -Phoeni x, 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 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
& 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 Ms. Jill Morrison 522 E. Colgate Tempi, Arizona 85238
.~
hnv I vs Ure atus of'Staff PDA Review of P
Verde
~
Control Room In Supplement No.
1 to the SER, the staff identified 13 systems and items which were not available, in whole or in part, for staff review during'its site visit in September 1981'.
Subsequently through various submittals, the applicant has provided the staff with additional information in. those areas.
As a result of these submittals the staff has closed out a number of items.
The following issues remain open and need resolution to complete the staff's review for the PDA:
(1)
Confirmation of correction of human engineering discrepancies (HEDs)
(2)
Clarification of the status'>of the environmental survey including the lighting. survey
.(3)
Clarification of the applicant's review of the remote shutdown panel.
A detailed discussion of these issues is presented below.
In its status report of May 11,
- 1982, the staff identified 157 HEDs relating to the PDA review of the control'room.
The applicant's actions regarding these HEDs were provided by letters dated June 30,'983 and March 4, 1984.
During May 1984, the staff conducted a confirmatory audit on a sample of 28 of the HEDs.
Of this sample all except four of the HEDs were found to be acceptably corrected.
The corrective actions for the remaining four were in progress; the HEDs concern specular glare on Foxboro displays (Item A. 1.3), inconsistent
~ ~
abbreviations on alarm legends. (Item A.3.13), 'green light intensity change for faulted from normal s'tatus on the electrical bus panel (Item A.5.16),
and logic for selecting correct pairs of pushbuiton controls to initiate manual reactor trip (Item A.6:1).
The applicant has committed to complete action on the above four HEDs before
/
fuel loading.
In addition, the staff requires tha" the applicant provide con-firmation, prior to fuel load, that all other corrections required for licensing have been completed.
In "its le ter of June 30,
- 1983, the applicant committed to provide the HRC with the correqtive action and implementation date required as a result of
reviewing its control room 1'ighting.problems (Item A.1.2); that review was to be completed by July Sl, 1983.
To date the staff has not received the results of the applicant's control room lighting review, about its proposed corrective
'ctions.
With regard to the remainder of the environmental review, in its
'Harch 14, 1984 letter, the applicant committed to complete the control room environmental study and provide a report of corrective actions for NRC review befo're the plant exceeds S~~ power.
It is not clear from the applicant's submittals what portion of the environ-'ental study will be completed before licensing and what corrective actions will be completed.
The applicant should submit the results of the environmental'tudy, including the control"room lighting survey, 30 days before licensing.
Y.
The submittal should include the HEDs identified, the proposed corrections and implementation
- schedule, and justification for HEDs not to be corrected.
- Also, any portions of the environmental study which will not be completed before licensing should be identified and justified.
By letter dated Nay 4,
- 1984, the applicant submitted a
summary of its human factors evaluation of the remote shutdown panel.
- However, the submittal con-tained a list of just the HEDs which would.be, corrected, provided no basis for the proposed corrective actions and provided no basis for delaying the evalua-tion of panel layout and functional grouping beyond fuel loading.
Thirty days before licensing, the staff requires that the applicant submit a discussion of the results of the remote shutdown panel human.factors evaluation, including all"HEDs identified, the proposed corrective actiogs correlated with the
- HEDs, and the justification for not correcting HEDs or for delaying corrective actions beyond. fuel'oad.
0 r~ ~
II i