ML20127C248

Requests Encl Request for Addl Info Re SPDS Be Transmitted to Applicant for Response.Reply Requested within 60 Days

ML20127C248
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley, 05000000
Issue date:	10/31/1984
From:	Moore V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20126J910	List: ML20126J908 ML20126J981 ML20127B938 ML20127B965 ML20127C169 ML20127C196 ML20127C243 ML20127C248 ML20127C259 ML20127C298
References
FOIA-84-926 NUDOCS 8411130251
Download: ML20127C248 (4)

Text

'

o 2 l(

+f n nev,),, UNITED STATES

. E a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h*  ! WASHING TON, D. C. 20555

% ,8

'% , , , , , *#, W 2 ; $PA MEMORANDUM FOR: George Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing FROM: Voss A. Moore, Chief Human Factors Engineering Branch Division of Human Factors , Safety

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY SYSTEM FOR BEAVER VALLEY 2 The staff has reviewed the applicant's submittal concerning the Safety Parameter Display System and concluded that insufficient information was provided to complete its evaluation. The information needed by the staff to complete the evaluation is defined in the enclosure. Please forward the enclosure to the applicant and request a response within 60 days.

SGD6 Voss A. Moore, Chie Human Factors Engineering Branch Division of Human Factors Safety

Enclosure:

As stated cc: D. Ziemann F. Rosa G. Mazetis F. Orr J. Joyce L. Lazo

Contact:

G. W. Lapinsky x29694 p

m--

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE BEAVER VALLEY 2 SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY SYSTEM Each operating reactor shall be provided with a Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS). The Commission approved requirements for an SPDS are defined in NUREG-0737, Supplement 1. In the Regional workshops on Generic Letter 82-33 held during March 1983, the NRC discussed these requirements and the staff's review of the SPDS.

The staff reviewed the SPDS safety analysis and implementation plan provided by Duquesne Light (Reference 1). The staff was unable to complete the review because of insufficient information. The following additional information is required to continue and complete the review:

INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL SYSTEMS INFORMATION 420.01 Isolation Devices Provide the following:

a. For each type of device used to accomplish electrical isolation, describe the specific testing performed to demonstrate that the device is acceptable for its application (s). This description should include elementary diagrams when necessary to indicate the test configuration and how the maximum credible faults were applied to the devices.

b. Data to verify that the maximum credible faults applied during the test were the maximum voltage / current to which the device could be exposed, and define how the maximum voltage / current was determined.

c. Data to verify that the maximum credible fault was applied to theoutputofthedeviceinthetransversemode(between signal and return) and other faults were considered (i.e.,

openandshortcircuits).-

d. Define the pass / fail acceptance ^ criteria for each type of device.

e. A comitmnt that the isolation devices comply with the environmentalqualifications(10CFR50.49)andwiththe seismic qualificaticns which were the basis for plant licensing.

m. .

~

r

( ,

< . j

f. A description of the measures taken to protect the safety systems from electrical interference (i.e., Electrostatic Coupling, EMI, Cornon Mode and Crosstalk) that may be generated by the SPDS.

HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING INFORMATION 620.01 Data Validation Describe the specific methods used to validate data displayed in the SPDS. Also describe how invalid data is defined to the operator.

620.02 Verification and Validation Program Define and discuss the Verification and Validation Program Plan which was used in the development of the SPDS. Also, describe results to date from the Verification and Validation Program, and the corrective actions taken to address identified design deficiencies.

620.03 Unreviewed Safety Questions Provide conclusions regarding unreviewed safety questions or changes to technical speicifcations.

620.04 Implementation Plan Provide a current schedule for full implementation of the SPDS including hardware, software, operator training, procedures and user manuals.

A f-

+

c. . - n,

l REFERENCE 3

Letter from E.J. Woolever (DLC) to D. Eisenhut (NRC) with attachment, dated 1 August 1, 1984. l Y  ?? '

M

- g e . - emq +: nw a -

(

. po uruq

,71 jo

'g UNITED STATES e n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r,; WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

l

% . . . . . p# gg,p11 M Docket No. 50-412

)

MEMORANDUM FOR: G. Knighton, Chief, Licensing Branch No. 3, Division of Licensing FROM: Olan D. Parr, Chief, Auxiliary Systems Branch, Division of Systems Integration

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 2 - AUXILIARY SYSTEMS BRANCH The enclosed request for additional information for Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2 is a result of recent ACRS concerns involving the handling of heavy loads (SRPSection9.1.5). We request that the applicant respond to this request for information as soon as possible.

l Qany.Parr,ChiefA b.L Auxiliary Systems Branch Division of Systems Integration l

Enclosure:

As Stated cc w/ enclosure:

P.. Bernero L. Rubenstein T. Novak J. Wermiel J. N. Wilson M. Licitra M. Ley R. Anand

Contact:

R. Anand X29465 q

I[

.h - - - - - - - .

,co

.o .

REQdESTFORADDITIONALINFORMATION BEAVER VALLEY. UNIT 2 AUXILIARY SYSTEMS BRANCH Section 9.1.5 - As a result of recently identified ACRS concerns, provide a response to the following request for information regarding the handling of heavy loads:

a.

Describe the means provided to assure the integrity of concrete structures. lifting eyes, and any other heavy loads so that they will not fall apart while being handled during refueling should the lifting eye fail or the load impact other structures.

b.

Alternatively, describe the consequences of failure of concrete structures or other heavy loads during handling. This evaluation should confirm that unaccept-able fuel damage or damage to safety related equipment will not occur.

?

a h

e

NU iu 'fo

^!hafl 2790 - 3n/]

m )left2ft*{ *

~

OCT 5 1934 s

S Docket No. 50-412 MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing, DL I FROM: William V. Johnston, Assistant Director Materials, Chemical & Environmental Technology, DE

SUBJECT:

HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING QUESTIONS ON SITE FLOODING -

5 In seviewing Section 2.4 of the BVPS-2 FSAR, we determined that the applicant had not provided sufficient information to support its conclusion

. that flooding would not affect safety-related structures. On August 25,

s. 1983, we sent you several questions requesting addHdowl -infonaation

& concerning site flooding. These questions were subsequently sent to the t applicant on August 31, 1983. As you know, the applicant has appealed our

& request that they consider new PMP criteria; consequently, they have not s responded to several of our questions.

i r Much of the information that we requested is necessary to review the applicant's analyses in the FSAR and has nothing to do with the new PMP 4

g criteria.

.;L.

We have .be'en instructed to independently analyze the local flooding problem y' at BVFS-2; on a tight schedule. However, before we can complete this analy-1 sis, we muct have much of the previously requested information. Attached is

& a revised set of questions which contains no reference to the new PMP cri-teria. We request that you resubmit these questions to the applicant and request a prompt reply so that we may complete our analysis within the specified time.

-r- , j 11-f.Sj I~

William V. Johnston, Assistant Director Materials, Chemical & Environmental Technology

. Division of Engineering

Attachment:

Questions

) O cc: See next pag U 1

Df

(

( ..

Thomas M. Novak Ed cc: w/o attachment .

E.' Case -

R.-Vollmer w/ attachment 7*

G. Knighton ,

R. Ballard -

M. Ley ...'

R. Jachowski R. Gonzales

.j

~n DISTRIBUTION: ~

Dockets n-EHEB Rdg Sw W

a

'l

. :1 I

DE:EHEB DE: IB DE: DE:'AD:MCET d RGonzales:ws RAJachowski RLBalla d WVJohnston 10/ous4 10/a /84 10/3 /84 10/ /84

• 0' HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING QUESTIONS ON LOCAL SITE DRAINAGE

~

.. BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION UNIT 2 DOCKET NUMBER 50-412

1. In determining the local PMF for Peggs Run, you used a rain-(FSAR 2.4.2. fall intensity of 9.3 in/hr. The staff does not agree that 3.1) . this approach is correct since 9.3 in. is the total PMP that ~

you determined for a 1-hr period. The PMP must be broken down *

(SRP2.4.3) ,

to appropriate time increments suitable for the drainage area .i and times of concentration that exist at the site. Document r the adequacy of your design by using a rainfall intensity cor-responding to the time of concentration for Peggs Run. Provide your estimate of time of concentration together with an expla- '

nation of how it was calculated.

~

e

2. It is not clear how you determined a PMF for Peggs Run. If ~E (FSAR2.4.2. you developed a hydrograph, provide a plot of the hydrograph ;f 3.1) or a tabulation of discharge versus time and describe the '

(SRP2.4.3) procedures used to develop the hydrograph. If you used some t' other method such as the rational formula, describe what was b done and include the values of all parameters used. y n

3. You have not provided any information concerning the effects c (FSAR 2.4.2. of the railroad culvert on potential flooding of the site. c 3.1) However, the staf~f notes that in responding to a USAEC staff j (SRP 2.4.3) position on the BVPS-2 PSAR, you stated that assuming that the 4 railroad culvert is blocked and that the railroad embankment  :

does not. wash out, water will rise to an elevation of 729.6 feet 7 on-site. In your analysis, you routed the Peggs' Run PMF over -

the railroad embankment assuming an 800 ft weir length. Is this analysis still valid? If it is, please provide the following information for staff review: ,,

a. The basis for assuming a weir length of 800 ft.

b. A profile of the railroad, in the vicinity of the culvert, showing elevations of the top of the rail at each break e in slope. '

c. Elevation-storage data for the ponding area behind the railroad embankment.

If conditions or design of the railroad culvert have changed - o from the PSAR, you should reevaluate the flood potential of the railroad culvert, make appropriate changes to the FSAR, and provide your re-analysis for staff review.

i O

C

, ej5~

4. You state that you determined that, if the Peggs Run culvert (FSAR2.4.2. failed during a PMF such that it would carry only negligible -

3.1) flow, due to blockage by debris, water levels in the vicinity '

(SRP2.4.3) of safety-related structures would be below an elevation of 730.ft. What elevation did you calculate? You further state ~

that the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers water surface profiles ,

program HEC-2, was used to generate a series of water surface .-

elevations. Please provide those elevations together with }

the cross-sections used and their locations. Also provide all pertinent values such as Mannings "n" values, flows, starting water levels, slopes and any other assumptions used

• in computing water surface profiles. If you determined that water would overflow Peggs Run to the area east and south of -

a the Highway 168 bridge-approach, provide a detailed topographic 1 map of this area., ,-d

5. In analyzing local flooding, all you state is the method used -

(FSAR2.4.2.

3.2) to determine water depths and the maximum water elevations computed at the reactor building, the control building and M

M (SRP2.4.3) the radwaste building. 3

a. Are these the only safety-related buildings that could h be affected by local flooding?

b. You have not provided the staff sufficient information g to. enable j;t.to review your local flood analysis. 3 Please provide a more detailed description of your unalysis. ^

c. You should also provide a detailed topographic map of the site showing roads and railroads together with their I top elevations. Other obstructions to flow such as tem- '

porary and permanent buildings, trailers, sheds, fences, etc., should also be shown.

2

.