ML17303A275
| ML17303A275 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 02/05/1987 |
| From: | Licitra E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Van Brunt E ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8702170344 | |
| Download: ML17303A275 (8) | |
Text
SPR REGil, (4
Mp0 0O Iill I ~
0
'0 Ct
~o~
+tt*w+
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 FEB 5
1887 Docket Nos.:
50-528, 50-529 and 50-530 Mr. E.
E.
Van Brunt, Jr.
Executive Vice President Arizona Nuclear Power Project Post Office Box 52034 Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034
Dear Mr. Van Brunt:
SUBJECT:
SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY SYSTEM -
PALO VERDE, UNITS 1, 2 AND 3 On November 18 and 19, 1986, the staff performed an audit of the Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) at the Palo Verde site.
The findings resulting from the audit were discussed with your staff at the November 20, 1986 exit briefing and most of them are provided in the meeting
- summary, dated December 11, 1986.
The remainder are included in the Enclosure to this letter.
Included in the findings were staff c'oncerns regarding the isolation devices for the SPDS.,
A subsequent meeting was held on December 9, 1986 in Bethesda, Maryland to discuss those concerns.
As a result of the staff's review of the isolation device test data presented at the meeting, the concerns were resolved and we now conclude that the isolation devices are acceptable for the specific circuits in which they are used in the SPDS.
Based on the above conclusion and on the evaluation of the
Therefore, the restriction on the use of the SPDS, specified in Condition (e) in Attachment 3 to the Operating License for Palo Verde, Unit 1 (NPF-41) and in the Condition in Attachment 2 to the Operating License for Palo Verde, Unit 2 (NPF-51), is no longer applicable.
However, the staff's audit of the SPDS did identify several human engineering discrepancies (HED) that should be addressed.
In addition, the staff provided comments regarding the SPDS parameter selection, data validation, and the system computer and software that should also be addressed.
These HEDs and the staff's comments are discussed in the December 11, 1986 meeting summary and in the enclosure to this letter.
8702170344 870205 PDR ADOCK 050005'28' PDR
nn
Mr. E., E.
Van BruntJr.
Arizona Nuclear Power Project Pal o Verde CC:
Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
Snell
& 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 Council James A. Boeletto, Esq.
Southern California Edison Company P. 0.
Box 800
- Rosemead, California 91770 Mr. Mark Ginsberg Energy Director Office of Economic Planning and Development 1700 West Washington - 5th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Mr. Wayne Shirley Assistant Attorney General Bataan Memorial Building Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503 Mr. Roy Zimmerman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. 0.
Box 239 Arlington, Arizona 85322 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 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 Mr. Ron Rayner P. 0.
Box 1509 Goodyear; AZ 85338 Mr. Charles B. Brinkman, Manager Washington Nuclear Operations Combustion Engineering, Inc.
7910 Woodmont Avenue Suite 1310
- Bethesda, Maryland 20814
k I
If I
I
ENCLOSURE ADDITIONAL STAFF CONYiENTS ON PALO VERDE SPDS PRESENTED AT EXIT BRIEFING N ll 20/86 In addition to the staff comments provided in the December ll, 1986 meeting
- summary, the following comments were also discussed with the APS staff at November 20, 1986 exit briefing following the staff's site audit of the Palo Verde SPDS.
Add under Software Engineering:
In order to assure that acceptable response of the display system to plant transients is achieved, performance goals for the system 'must be identified an'd documented.
The display system should then be modified to achieve the identified goals.
Add under Human Factors:
Invalid data flags do not propagate to the Safety Indicator Blocks.
Therefore, the Safety'ndicator Blocks may incorrectly indicate Critical Safety Function status based upon invalid inputs.
The display format of trend plots for process variables violates convention used by analog hard-wired recorders and may result in user confusion.
A number of minor deviations from accepted human factors practice were noted during the audit.
These are as follows; The mnemonics identifying the Critical Safety Functions associated with each Safety Indicator Block are difficult to read; In many cases, color coded text is difficult to read.
An example of this is the indicator of the current value of parameters in the unsafe range displayed on trend plots using red characters; Time units on trend plots do not line up with the corresponding tick marks on the time axis; The extraneous word "generation" appears on the log-power trend plot.
~t I
J I
We request that you advise us by March 1, 1987 as to when you plan to respond to the above HEDs and staff comments.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
See next page E. A. Licitra, Project Manager PWR Project Directorate No.
7 Division of PWR Licensing-B DI TRIBUTION oc et Fi e
NRC PDR LPDR PD7 Reading JLee EALicitra JCalvo EJordan BGrimes
MDavis PD7/gal PEICSB PY D0R:PD7 EALicitra/yt JCalvo GWKgighton 2/g/87 2/5'/87 2/t</87
f I