ML17298B781

Forwards Request for Addl Info Based on Review of Studies Re Whether Fires at Plant Could Result in Spurious Actuations

ML17298B781
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	12/04/1984
From:	Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Van Brunt E ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR
References
NUDOCS 8501040234
Download: ML17298B781 (6)

Text

Docket Nos.:

50-528, 50-529 and 50-530 UN-l-Ã 59-525/529/5 9

'@G 4

1 Mr. E.

E.

Van Brunt, Jr.

Vice President - Nuclear Projects Arizona Public Service Company Post Office Box 21666 Phoenix, Arizona 85036

Dear Mr. Van Brunt:

LPDR NSIC PRC System LB¹3 Reading JLee EALicitra NGrace EJordan

Attorney, OELD QEG 4 1984-ACRS (16)

Subject:

Request for Additional Information - Palo Verde Spurious Actuation Evaluation As a result of the staff's review of the studies performed for Palo Verde on whether fires at the plant could result in spurious actuations, we have deter-mined the need for additional information.

The specific information required is identified in the enclosed request and has been discussed with members of your staff.

We ask that you provide responses to the enclosed request in an expeditious manner so that the staff can complete its review in a time frame consistent with your projected fuel load date.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, you should contact Mr. E. 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:LB/43+/g EALicitra/yt G

ton 12/g/84 12/

/84 8501040234 84.i204 j

PDR ADDCK 05000528 A

PDR

1 II 11 K

',(l

'a 4

i

~

=

~

I

Palo Vi rde 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 K 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 Geheral 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, Cal ifornia 94596 Kenneth Berlin, Esq.

Winston 5, Strawn Suite 500 2550 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 Ms. Lynne Bernabei Government Accountability Project of the Institute for Policy Studies 1901 gue Street, NW Washington, DC 20009 Ms. Jill Morrison 522 E. Colgate Tempi, Arizona 85238

a~

~

ENCLOSURE RE UEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PL V, UN S1,,

ND3 l.

In Revision 1 to the Outside Control Room Fire Spurious Actuation Study, Fire Areas 1, 3a, 2, 38, and 68 have no findings reported and have.been deleted 'from the report.

The original.version of the report contained findings for these areas.

Provide the reasons for deleting these fire areas in Revision 1.

2., For Fire Area 50-8 in Table 3-1, the reader is advised to see the findings for this area;

however, the body of the report does not contain any dis-cussion on Fire Area 508.

Explain this discrepancy.

3.

Several Fire Zones in the initial report contain the essential chilled water expansion tank in the evaluation's findings as a system which can experience spurious operation, see fire zone 118 as an example.

In Revision 1, this system ha's been removed from the findings.

Provide justification for removal of this system from the evaluation findings.

4.

On Pa'ge 56 of Revision 1, it is stated that "Interruption of SDC can be tolerated..."

How is SDC interrupted and for how long?

What are the consequences of the interruption and how are they rectified?

5.

Assumption 17 of the original report has been-deleted and replaced with a

new assumption.

This new assumption appears to be broader in scope than the original.

Provide the reason for this change.

6.

Define the term degraded core cooling.

7.

In Revision 1 to the Control Room Fire Spurious Actuation Evaluation, Evaluation Finding 1, in Section 3.7 and 3. in Section 3. 13 have been deleted.

Provide the rationale for these deletions.

1

~ li