ML20154P718
| ML20154P718 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 05/23/1988 |
| From: | Craig Harbuck Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Tison Campbell ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| TAC-51219, TAC-51220, NUDOCS 8806060052 | |
| Download: ML20154P718 (6) | |
Text
.
May 23, 1988-
\\
Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368 Mr. T. Gene Campbell Vice President, Nuclear Operations Arkansas Power and Light Company Post Office Box 551 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203
Dear Mr. Campbell:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY SYSTEM, ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNITS 1 AND 2 (TACNOS.51219AND51220)
After reviewing your submittals on the Safety Parameter Display System, we find ~that we need additional infomation, described in the enclosure, in order-that we may complete our review. Questions regarding the maximum credible fault testing of Rochester Instrument Systems SC-132, and Energy Incorporated Model 00993-4, remain unresolved. We request the information be provided within 30 days from the receipt of this letter.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements of this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore OMB clearance is not required under P. L.96-511.
Sincerely, C.CrafgHarbuck,ProjectManager Project Directorate - IV Division of Reactor Projects - III.
IV, Y and Special Projects
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure:
See n (t page
_D RIBUTION Urocket File NRC PDR Local PDR PD4 Reading t
L. Rubenstein J. Calvo P. Noonan C. Harbuck OGC-Rockville E. Jordan J. Partlow ACRS(10) i PD4 Plant File PD4/ LAC /A_.
PD4/PM&lk PD!/D k j
PNoonaw CHarbuck:sr JCalvo 05d3/88 05/M/88 05/t3/88 g6060052000523 i
p ADOCK 05000313 j
PDR i
A l '\\
May 23, 1988 I
Docket Nos. 50-310 and 50-368 Mr. T. Gene Campbell Vice President, Nuclear Operations Arkansas Power and Light Company Post Office Box 551 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203
Dear Mr. Campbell:
SUBJECT:
RE00EST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY SYST EM, ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNITS 1 AND 2 (TACNOS.51219ANC51220)
After reviewing your submittals on the Safety Parameter Display System, we find that we need additional infonration, described in the enclosure, in order that we may complete our review. Questions regarding the raximum credible fault testing of Rochester Instrument Systems 50-132, and Energy Incorporated Model 00993-4, remain unresolved. We request the information be provided within 30 days from the receipt of this letter.
The reportinc and/or recordkeeping requirements of this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore OMB clearance is not required under P. L.96-511.
Sincerely, C.CrafgHarbuck,ProjectManager j
Project Directorate - IV j
Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure:
See next page DISTRIBUTION Docket File NRC POR Local PDR PD4 Reading L. Rubenstein J. Calvo P. Noonan C. Harbuck OGC-Rockville E. Jordan J. Partlow ACRS (10)
PD4 Plant File 4
PD4/LAOfL PD4/PM 04/d-PD4/D/'N PNoonalt CHarbuck:sr JCalvo 05g)/88 05/'M /88 05/23/88
UNITED STATES
[' 3,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHING TON. D. C. 20565 f
May 23, 1988 y
Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368 Mr. T, Gene Carpbell Vice President, huclear Operations Arkansas Pcrer and Light Compar.y Post Office Box 551 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203
Dear Mr. Campbell:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITION /L INFORMATION - SAFETY PARAVETER DISPLAY SYSTEP, ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNITS 1 AND 2 (TAC N05. 51219 AND 51220)
After reviewing your submittals en the Safety Parameter Display System, we find that we need additienal infomation, described in the enclosure, in order that we may complete cur review. Questions regarding the maximum credible fault testing of Rochester Instrument Systems SC-13%, and Energy Incorporated Model CC993-4, retrain unresolved. We recuest the infortation te provided within 20 days from the receipt of this letter.
The reperting ar.c/or recordkeeping.equirements of this letter affect fewer than ten resperdents; therefore OMB clearance is not required under P. L.96-511.
Sincerely,
[ $47 luck C. Craig Harbuck, Project Manacer Project Directorate - IV l
Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, Y and Special Projects
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure:
See next page L
N i
Mr. T. Gene Campbell Arkansas Nuclear One Arkansas Power & Light Company Unit Nos. I and 2 cc:
Mr. Dan R. Howard, Manager Mr. Charles B. Brinknan, Manager Licensing Washington Nuclear Operations Arkansas Nuclear One C-E Power Systems P. O. Box 608 7910 Woodmont Avenue Russellville, Arkansas 72801 Suite 1310 Bethesda, Maryland 2C814 Mr. James M. Levine, Executive Dinctor Site Nuclear Operations Mr. Frank Wilson, Director Arkansas Nuclear One Division of Environmental Health P. O. Box 608 Protection Russellville, Arkansas 72801 Deaartment of Health Ar(ansas Department of Health Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
4815 West Markham Street Bishop, Libennan, Cook, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Purcell & Reynolds 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Honorable William Abernathy Suite 700 County Judge of Pope County Washington, D.C.
20036 Pope County Courthouse Russelville, Arkansas 72801 Regicnal Adrrinistrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission Office of Executive Director for Operations 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 Senior Resident inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrission 1 Nuclear Plant Road Russellville, Arkansas 72801 Ms. Greta Dicus, Director Division of Environmental Health Protection Arkansas Department of Health 4815 West Markan Street Little Reck, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Robert B. Borsur Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Power Generation Division Suite 220 1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 525 Rockville, Faryland 20852
-f s
ENCLOSURE
~~
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORPATION CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNITS 1 AND 2 SAFETY PARAEETER DISPLAY SYSTEM Each operating rector shall be provided with a Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS). The Conr.ission approved requirements for an SPDS are defined in NUPEG-0737, Supplement 1.
In the Regional Workshops on Generic Letter 02-33 held during March 1983, the NRC discussed these requirements and the staff's review of the SPDS.
In order to satisfy the NRC requirements concerning the SPDS, Arkansas Power and Light Company (APL) submitted Safety Analysis Reports by letters dated April 30, 1984 and June 29, 1984 The reports provided c description and a safety analysis of the SPDS at Arkansas Nuclear One, Units I and 2.
These reports did not address the requirements that the SPDS trust be suitably isolated from equipment and sensors that are used in safety systems to prevent electrical and electroric interference.
On August 7,1985, a request for additional infomation, which included specific question on the electrical isolators, was sent to APL. The requested
)
infomation was received by letter dated October 28, 1985, and by draft letter dated July 17, 1986. The staff held telephone conferences 4:ith the licensee on July 28, 1986 and August 6,1986 to clarify the submittals.
i The staff has reviewed the available information and has detemined that two j
items remain unresolved. The first item concerns the Rochester Instrument Systems SC-1302 maximum credible fault testing. APL has noted that the 50-1302 was tested at 250'VOC and 600 VAC applied to the non-Class lE output in the 1
i
... ~.
(
. transverse mode.
It is the staff's understanding that the 600 VAC voltage was provided by a 120/600, 300VA step up transformer which would provide a current potential much less than the 20 amperos (0240 VAC) defined by APL as the maximum credible fault in the July 28, 1986 telecon. The staff requests documentation which demonstrates the device can withstand a maximum credible fault in the transverse mode at the plant defined level of 240 VAC and 20 anperes. The staff will accept testing by the licensee, vendor or an independent lab.
The second iten concerns the Energy Incorporated (EI) Model 00993-4 maximum credible fault testing. Tests were cenducted by EI using a maximum credible fault of 10 amperes at 480 VAC. Because the total energy available in the El test is ccrparable to the ANO maximum fault level an analysis shewing the ANO requirerents er.veloped by the El testing would be acceptable to the staff in lieu of further testing. The staff requests submittal of the plant specific analysis or testing at the plant specific maximum credible fault levels.
l G
. - - - - -