ML17303A814
| ML17303A814 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 02/23/1988 |
| From: | Licitra E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Van Brunt E ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR |
| References | |
| TASK-2.K.3.05, TASK-TM GL-86-06, GL-86-6, TAC-59412, TAC-64110, TAC-64111, NUDOCS 8803090139 | |
| Download: ML17303A814 (8) | |
Text
l February 23, 1988 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:
DISTRIBUTION NRC 8 Local-PDRs EALicitra OGC JLee MDavis EJordan JPartlow ACRS (10)
PDV Reading
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PALO VERDE RESPONSE TO GENERIC LETTER 86-06 (TAC NOS. 59412, 64110 AND 64111)
Your response to Generic Letter 86-06, regarding implementation of TMI Action Item II.K.3.5, was submitted by letter dated November 24, 1986.
As a result of our review of your submittal, we have determined the need for additional information to complete our evaluation.
The specific information required is identified in the enclosed request.
We ask that you provide the requested information and inform us within two weeks of receipt of this letter when the additional information will be submitted.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/enclosure:
See next page original signed by Emanuel A. Licitra, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate V
Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DRSP:PDV P/PDV ELicitra.
g /p,+88 g
/88 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 8803090i39 880223 PDR ADOCK 05000528 6
- DR PDV
- G ton
- P /P/88
i iI N
~I E
tl,
.IM II
~ 5 d
jf 1
I v,
J P
Mr. E.
E.
Van Brunt, Jr.
Arizona NUclear Power Project Palo Verde CC:
Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
Snell
& Wilmer 3100 Valley Center Phoenik, Arizona 85073 Mr. James M. Flenner, Chief Counsel Arizona Corporation Comoission 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, Ca 1 ifornia 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. Tim Polich U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. 0.
Box 97
- Tonopah, Arizona 85354-0097 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 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
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON ARIZONA NUCLEAR POWER PROJECT'S
RESPONSE
TO GENERIC LETTER 86-06 IMPLEMENTATION OF TMI ACTION ITEM I I.K. 3. 5 FOR PALO VERDE, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 1.
Arizona Nuclear Power Project's (ANPP's) letter of November 24, 1986 did not clearly identify which of the criteria presented in CEN-268 was selected to trip the second set of pumps during a small break LOCA (SBLOCA) at Palo Verde, Units 1, 2, and 3 (PV-1,2,3).
Identify the criterion selected and the setpoints used to determine when to trip the second set of pumps.
Also, identify and provide justification for the pressure setpoint used to trip the first set of pumps if different from that recommended in CEN-268.
2.
For the setpoints identified in response to question 1, discuss how the effects of instrument uncertainty, as identified in ANPP's November 24, 1986 response to Generic Letter (GL) 86-06 item 2, were included in determining the setpoints for pressure, subcooled
- margin, and the other parameters in the plant specific pump trip strategy.
3.
Clarify how the normal condi tions error of zero was determined for all the instrumentation listed in Table I of ANPP's November 24, 1986 response.
This error appears to be unrealistic because any instrument has some uncertainty associated with the measurement it provides even under the best conditions.
A footnote in the table states that the error provided is the tolerance added to an instruments reading by the operator.
Is an error of zero used because the instrument circuit already accounts for possible instrument uncertainty?
4.
ANPP did not provide sufficient information in its November 24, 1986 response to GL 86-06 item 3 to determine how the uncertainties in the generic analysis presented in CEN-268 affect the results as they apply to PV-1,2,3.
Therefore, identify the PV-1,2,3 plant specific features not representative of the reference plant used in the analyses
~ ~
,presented in CEN-268.
At a minimum discuss core power; decay heat; HPIS capacity; makeup flows; setpoints for steam generator secondary safety valves; setpoints for reactor trip, safety injection, and accumulator injection and show that the values used in the generic analysis are either representative of those at PV-1,2,3 or conservative.
If a reference plant parameter is not representative for PV-1,2,3, discuss how this was considered in determining the plant specific setpoints.
Alternately, show that the pressure setpoint calculated from the equation provided in CEN-268, Supplement 1, in response to questions 48-55 using plant specific values as input is conservative relative to the 1400 psia setpoint recommended for PV-1,2,3 in CEN-268
~
5.
Additional information is needed to clarify ANPP's response to Item 4 of Generic Letter 86-06.
This includes identifying the procedures which provide direction for use of individual steam generators with and without operating RCPs and discussing operator training for use of these procedures as well as all procedures requiring use of pump trip guidelines.
Also, ANPP's response to item 4 listed the following emergency operating procedures (EOPs) as those which require the use of reactor coolant pump trip guidelines:
1.
4[1,2,or3]EP-[1,2,or3]ZZ01:
diagnostic aids.
2.
4[1,2,or3]RO-[1,2,or3]ZZ01 to 4[1,2,or3]RO-[1,2,or3]ZZ09:
optimal recovery guidelines.
3.
4[1,2,or3]RO-[1,2,or3]ZZ10:
functional recovery guideline.
Identify what situations, i.e.,
main st'earn line breaks, steam generator tube ruptures, small break LOCAs, etc.,
are covered by these EOPs.
6.
Table I of ANPP's November 24, 1986 letter showed that two subcooled margin monitors were available, but two subcooled margin monitors were required for the pump trip criterion used at PV-1,2,3.
Thus, this
parameter had zero redundancy.
Clarify what steps the operators would
- take to determine subcooling margin and trip the pumps, if one (or both) of the subcooled margin monitors should fail for any reason.
7.
Item 2 of Generic Letter 86-06 asked licensees to address local conditions such as fluid jets or pipe whip which might influence instrument reliability.
ANPP's response to item 2 in its November 24, 1986 letter did not address this issue.
Provide this information for review.
It