ML20003F879
| ML20003F879 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 04/16/1981 |
| From: | Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Van Brunt E ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104230807 | |
| Download: ML20003F879 (5) | |
Text
a.
p %,
C.
UNITED STATES y 1 r /.
3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION jCj WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
.s W/;
s, ~
APR 1 S 1981
&,h N
/%p 8 {p pW
'N Docket Nos.: STN 50-528/529/530
(,h k~
c_'
'l/ W '9 t
l ISSA i-8 Mr. E. E. Van Brunt, Jr.
Vice President - Nuclear Projects
\\
Arizona Public Service Company sJ P. O. Box 21666 phoenix, Arizona 85036
't?
g\\
Dear Mr. Van Brunt:
SUBJECT:
CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW / SITE VISIT We are currently scheduled to visit Palo Verde to perfom a control room design review in June, 1981. In order to effectively perform our review, we need to determine whether your control room will be ready for the standard type control room design review to be conducted by the Human Factors Engineering Branch team. Due to the acceleration in the operating licensing program, we are faced with the ambitious and difficult task of performing eleven (11) control room reviews by the end of the year.
In order to perform this task in an effective manner, we are proposing to These would be as divide our responsibilities into 3 types of reviews.
follows:
Where the applicant has completed his preliminary assessment and his 1.
control room meets the completeness criteria presented in Attachment 1, c
I Our we plan to conduct our standard 5 day control room design review.
standard control room design review consists of (1) receipt of the applicant's preliminary assessment, (2) one week HFEB control room visit about one month after receipt of the applicant's preliminary assessment. (3) transmittal of our review / audit report to the applicant, (4) review of applicant's response to our review / audit report, and (5) issuance of the SER input about two months after our control room visit.
Where the applicant's control room will not meet the completeness,l 2.
criteria of Attachment 1 two months prior to the requested SER inpu date (which in the case of Palo Verde is October 10,1981), completion of the NRC control room review can only be reported in a later SSER.
Where the plant is subject to a hearing with no control room contentions, we believe a status report on the control room review should be adequate The status report could be based on the applicant's preliminary for the SER.
assessment of his incomplete control room. The applicant's preliminary assessment should be submitted about one month prior to our SER input date.
Depending on the applicant's fuel load date relative to his completion of his Detailed Control Room Design Review in accordance with NUREG-0700,
\\
8104280}Q]
APR f 6 1981 2-our SSER input can be based either on (a) cur standard 5 day control room design review or (b) a review of the applicant's report on his Detailed Control Room Design Review.
3.
Where an applicant's control m is incomplete and the control room is a hearing contention, the SER should contain more than a status report.
If possible, we would like to be able to conclude that the control room is similar to those reviewed in the past and that it is probable that the control room can be made acceptable using enhancement techniques not requiring a major redesign and significant retraining of operators.
If travel funds permit, this finding should be based on a review of the applicant's preliminary assessment followed by an abbreviated control room survey by the HFEB team leader and consultants. If travel funds are not available for an abbreviated control room survey, we will attemot to reach preliminary findings for the SER based on meetings with the applicant, discussions with the I&E Resident Inspector, and review of control room photographs. Completion of the control room review for an SSER will be accomplished as described in Item 2 above.
Since there are no control room contentions anticipated in your hearing, we need to detemine whether a Category 1 or 2 review will be performed.
Please provide within 10 days of the date of this letter an estimate of what the construction status of your control room will be in June 1981 and an estimate of when your control room would be ready for our standard type control room review.
Sincerely, NW i
Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for licensing Division of Licensing cc: See next page.
ATTACHMENT:
CRITERIA FOR PLANT NTOL CRDR 9
6 i
ym,--.--
--y-
,,,.4
-.,c.,
a-m_,,.___.
r,__
m..,
.p.--,,.y%,e 3,
Mr. E. E. Van Brunt, Jr.
Vice President - Construction Projects Arizona Public Service Company P. O. Box 21666 Phoenix, Arizona 85036 cc: Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Charles S. Pierson Assistant Attorney General 200 State Capitol 1700 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 David N. Barry, Esq., Senior Counsel Charles R. Kocher, Esq., Assistant Counsel Southern California Edison Company P. O. Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770 Margaret Walker Deputy Director of Energy Programs Economic Planning and Development Office 1700 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 William Primm Assistant Attorney General Bataan Memorial Building Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503 Resident Inspector Palo Verde /NPS U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 21324 Phoenix, Arizona 85001 Ms. Patricia Lee Hourihan 6413 S. 26th Street Phoenix, Arizona 85040
ATT C H' *E *. * )
/
/
CRITERIA FOR CETERMINING WHETHE. : :L'
- EADY FOR CUT GTO' Ci:
(5 CAY',
1.
Overall CR construction and checkout is 85 to 90 percer.t comple:t.
exceot that installation and eneckout of ESF system controls and cis-plays are 100 percent complete.
2.
At least 80 percent of all systems. (including 100 percent of ESF systems) have been turned over to tne operating staff.
3.
Normal and emergency lighting systems are operatfor.al.
4.
Air conditioning and ventilation syster. is operatier.al.
5.
Control boards and display canel installation is accroximately 100 percent complete with essentially no holes in panels due to missing chassis or components and with power to illuminate controls and dis-pl ays.
6.
Emergency operating crocedures (EOPs) are complete to permit a H. F.
evaluation of the E0P using trained and licensed ocerators.
7.
Apolicant should have available as a minimum, of 3 (tnree) license:
operators to assist NRC during the CRCR.
8.
All annunciators should be operational to permit evalu: tion of and sequential oceration, readibility of alarm windows, and measure-ment of all individual alarm sound levels.
9.
Remote shutdown panel should be 80 to 90 percent corplete and available for Human Factors review.
10.*
Incore thermoccuole displays and subcoo'..1g monitor displays should bc available for NRC review in the control room.
11.
Applicant's oreliminary control room assessment rust be s::bc.itted tc the NRC at least one month prior t' our visit.
12.
Control room layout drawings included with item 11 above.
13.
Emergency operating procedures (EOPs) must be submitted to the GRC (PTRB) at least six (6) weeks prior to our visit. This schedule must be met to pt-'.it joint HFES/PTRB review of E0Ps. Failure to meet tr/:
criteria cou';d delay visits and SER inputs.
- Acolies to PWRs only.
- M 2-14.
Process corouter an: ati :e-i:nerals are cecr: icnal ar.: :.::. ;.
for human EaCtor Review.
15.
Operater workspace and envircreen are similar to what w:ii e u.en coerating and can be Human Factor reviewe:.
G i
I
-,-