|
---|
Category:SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT--LICENSING & RELATED ISSUES
MONTHYEARML20217K9931999-10-14014 October 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 234 to License DPR-56 ML20217B4331999-10-0505 October 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 233 to License DPR-56 ML20216H7091999-09-24024 September 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 229 & 232 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively ML20212D1281999-09-17017 September 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Proposed Alternatives CRR-03, 05,08,09,10 & 11 ML20211D5501999-08-23023 August 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 228 & 231 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively ML20206A2921999-04-20020 April 1999 Safety Evaluation Concluding That Proposed Changes to EALs for PBAPS Are Consistent with Guidance in NUMARC/NESP-007 & Identified Deviations Meet Requirements of 10CFR50.47(b)(4) & App E to 10CFR50 ML20205K7411999-04-0707 April 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 227 & 230 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively ML20196G7021998-12-0202 December 1998 SER Authorizing Proposed Alternative to Delay Exam of Reactor Pressure Vessel Shell Circumferential Welds by Two Operating Cycles ML20155C6071998-10-26026 October 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 226 to License DPR-44 ML20155C1681998-10-22022 October 1998 Safety Evaluation Accepting Proposed Alternative Plan for Exam of Reactor Pressure Vessel Shell Longitudinal Welds ML20154J2401998-10-0505 October 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 224 & 228 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively ML20154H4771998-10-0505 October 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 225 & 229 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively ML20154G6821998-10-0101 October 1998 SER Related to Request for Relief 01A-VRR-1 Re Inservice Testing of Automatic Depressurization Sys Safety Relief Valves at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,Units 2 & 3 ML20154G6631998-10-0101 October 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 223 & 227 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively ML20153B9651998-09-14014 September 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 9 to License DPR-12 ML20238F2661998-08-24024 August 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 222 to License DPR-44 ML20237A7761998-08-10010 August 1998 SER Accepting Licensee Response to NRC Bulleting 95-002, Unexpected Clogging of RHR Pump Strainer While Operating in Suppression Pool Cooling Mode ML20236R8281998-07-15015 July 1998 Safety Evaluation Approving Proposed Alternative (one-time Temporary non-Code Repair) Pursuant to 10CFR50.55a(a)(3) (II) ML20248F4781998-06-0101 June 1998 Corrected Page 1 to SE Supporting Amends 221 & 226 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively.Original Page 1 of SE Had Three Typos ML20247N5351998-05-11011 May 1998 SER Accepting Third 10-year Interval Inservice Program for Pump & Valves for Plant,Units 2 & 3 ML20198L3331997-12-18018 December 1997 Safety Evaluation Supporting Approval of Proposed Merger of Atlantic Energy,Inc,& Delmarva Power & Light Co ML20212G8301997-10-24024 October 1997 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 221 & 226 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively ML20198S2161997-10-24024 October 1997 Safety Evaluation Accepting Proposed Change to Provisions Identified in Rev 14 of PBAPS QAP Description Re Nuclear Review Board Meeting Frequency ML20217J5631997-10-0909 October 1997 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 225 to License DPR-56 ML20217J6161997-10-0707 October 1997 Safety Evaluation Re Alternative to Reactor Pressure Vessel Circumferential Weld Insps for Plant,Unit 3 ML20211L6241997-10-0303 October 1997 Safety Evaluation Authorizing Licensee Proposed Use of Code Case N-516-1 to Weld Modified Suction Strainer in Suppression Chamber at Plant ML20217D8161997-09-30030 September 1997 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 224 to License DPR-56 ML20211D6201997-09-17017 September 1997 SER Accepting VT-2 Examiner Qualification Request for PECO Energy Company,Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,Units 2 & 3 ML20216G5601997-09-0404 September 1997 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 220 & 223 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively ML20217M8001997-08-19019 August 1997 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 219 & 222 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively ML20149L2841997-07-23023 July 1997 Safety Evaluation Accepting Licensee Relief Request RR-22 for Plant,Units 2 & 3 ISI Program ML20140B0371997-05-30030 May 1997 Safety Evaluation Accepting QAP Description Change ML20135B4111997-02-19019 February 1997 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 218 & 221 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively ML20149L8681996-11-15015 November 1996 SER Accepting Core Spray Piping Insp & Flaw Evaluation for Plant,Unit 2 ML20149L2441996-01-29029 January 1996 Safety Evaluation Accepting Insp & Evaluation Methodology for Operation of Unit 3 Core Shroud for Duration of Current Operating Cycle,Performed in Response to GL 94-03 ML20058F5641993-11-19019 November 1993 SE Accepting Util 930305 Response to NRC Bulletin 90-01, Suppl 1, Loss of Fill-Oil in Transmitters Mfg by Rosemount ML20057B6441993-09-16016 September 1993 SER Concluding That Safe Shutdown Capability at Plant, Satisfies Requirements of Section Iii.G & Iii.L of App R to 10CFR50 ML20126H9031992-12-23023 December 1992 Safety Evaluation Granting Relief from Inservice Insp Requirements for Facilities ML20127N4941992-11-17017 November 1992 Safety Evaluation Accepting Util 120-day Response to Suppl 1 to GL 87-02 ML20062C7501990-10-26026 October 1990 Safety Evaluation Re Evaluation of Response to NRC Bulletin 90-002, Loss of Thermal Margin Caused by Channel Box Bow ML20246E0331989-08-21021 August 1989 SER Supporting Util Response to Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 2,1 (Parts 1 & 2).Programs Exist for Identifying safety-related Components Required for Reactor Trip Function & Vendor Interface W/Nmss Vendor for Required Components ML20205A8801988-10-31031 October 1988 Safety Evaluation of Util Plan for Restart of Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ML20148P3351988-04-0101 April 1988 SER Accepting Util Responses to Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 2.2.1 Re Equipment Classification Program for All safety-related Components ML20148E6301988-01-15015 January 1988 SER Accepting Util 840116,0927 & 850805 Responses to Generic Ltr 82-33,Item 6 Re Compliance w/post-accident Monitoring Instrumentation Guidelines of Reg Guide 1.97 Concerning Emergency Response Facilities ML20236D0541987-10-22022 October 1987 Safety Evaluation Supporting Util Repts on Computer Program Analyses Methods Intended for Use in Part of Plant Core Reload Analyses ML20235D2431987-09-22022 September 1987 Safety Evaluation Re Proposed Onsite Storage of Liquid Oxygen & Hydrogen for Implementation of Hydrogen Water Chemistry.Permanent Hydrogen Water Installation Acceptable ML20209H0201987-04-24024 April 1987 Safety Evaluation Supporting Util Re Torus Attached Piping Mods - Mark I Program ML20204C1001986-07-24024 July 1986 Safety Evaluation Supporting Listed Util Responses & Actions Reviewed During Insp on 840913-19 Re Generic Ltr 83-28,Items 3.1.1,3.1.2,3.2.1,3.2.2 & 4.5.1 ML20141F6071986-04-0808 April 1986 Safety Evaluation Granting Util Requests for Relief from Inservice Insp Requirements of ASME Code,Section XI ML20209C3141986-03-20020 March 1986 Safety Evaluation Supporting Shroud Head Connection Replacement at Facility,Per Util 860107 Submittal 1999-09-24
[Table view] Category:TEXT-SAFETY REPORT
MONTHYEARML20217K9931999-10-14014 October 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 234 to License DPR-56 ML20217B4331999-10-0505 October 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 233 to License DPR-56 ML20217G3541999-09-30030 September 1999 Monthly Operating Repts for Sept 1999 for Pbaps,Units 2 & 3. with ML20216H7091999-09-24024 September 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 229 & 232 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively ML20212D1281999-09-17017 September 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Proposed Alternatives CRR-03, 05,08,09,10 & 11 ML20212A5871999-08-31031 August 1999 Monthly Operating Repts for Aug 1999 for Peach Bottom,Units 2 & 3.With ML20211D5501999-08-23023 August 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 228 & 231 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively ML20212H6311999-08-19019 August 1999 Rev 2 to PECO-COLR-P2C13, COLR for Pbaps,Unit 2,Reload 12 Cycle 13 ML20210N7641999-07-31031 July 1999 Monthly Operating Repts for Jul 1999 for PBAPS Units 2 & 3. with ML20209H1121999-06-30030 June 1999 Monthly Operating Repts for June 1999 for Pbaps,Units 2 & 3. with ML20195H8841999-05-31031 May 1999 Monthly Operating Repts for May 1999 for Pbaps,Units 2 & 3. with ML20206N1661999-04-30030 April 1999 Monthly Operating Repts for Apr 1999 for Pbaps,Units 2 & 3. with ML20206A2921999-04-20020 April 1999 Safety Evaluation Concluding That Proposed Changes to EALs for PBAPS Are Consistent with Guidance in NUMARC/NESP-007 & Identified Deviations Meet Requirements of 10CFR50.47(b)(4) & App E to 10CFR50 ML20205K7411999-04-0707 April 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 227 & 230 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively ML20205P5851999-03-31031 March 1999 Monthly Operating Repts for Mar 1999 for Peach Bottom Units 2 & 3.With ML20207G9971999-02-28028 February 1999 Monthly Operating Repts for Feb 1999 for Peach Bottom Units 2 & 3.With ML20199E3471998-12-31031 December 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for Dec 1998 for Peach Bottom,Units 1 & 2.With ML20205K0381998-12-31031 December 1998 PECO Energy 1998 Annual Rept. with ML20206P1651998-12-31031 December 1998 Fire Protection for Operating Nuclear Power Plants, Section Iii.F, Automatic Fire Detection ML20206D3651998-12-31031 December 1998 1998 PBAPS Annual 10CFR50.59 & Commitment Rev Rept. with ML20206D3591998-12-31031 December 1998 1998 PBAPS Annual 10CFR72.48 Rept. with ML20196G7021998-12-0202 December 1998 SER Authorizing Proposed Alternative to Delay Exam of Reactor Pressure Vessel Shell Circumferential Welds by Two Operating Cycles ML20196E8261998-11-30030 November 1998 Response to NRC RAI Re Reactor Pressure Vessel Structural Integrity at Peach Bottom Units 2 & 3 ML20198B8591998-11-30030 November 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for Nov 1998 for Pbaps,Units 2 & 3. with ML20206R2571998-11-17017 November 1998 PBAPS Graded Exercise Scenario Manual (Sections 1.0 - 5.0) Emergency Preparedness 981117 Scenario P84 ML20198C6751998-11-0505 November 1998 Rev 3 to COLR for PBAPS Unit 3,Reload 11,Cycle 12 ML20195E5341998-10-31031 October 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for Oct 1998 for Pbaps,Units 2 & 3. with ML20155C6071998-10-26026 October 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 226 to License DPR-44 ML20155C1681998-10-22022 October 1998 Safety Evaluation Accepting Proposed Alternative Plan for Exam of Reactor Pressure Vessel Shell Longitudinal Welds ML20155H7721998-10-12012 October 1998 Rev 1 to COLR for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Unit 2, Reload 12,Cycle 13 ML20154J2401998-10-0505 October 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 224 & 228 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively ML20154H4771998-10-0505 October 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 225 & 229 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively ML20154G6821998-10-0101 October 1998 SER Related to Request for Relief 01A-VRR-1 Re Inservice Testing of Automatic Depressurization Sys Safety Relief Valves at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,Units 2 & 3 ML20154G6631998-10-0101 October 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 223 & 227 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively ML20154H5541998-09-30030 September 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for Sept 1998 for Pbaps,Units 2 & 3. with ML20153B9651998-09-14014 September 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 9 to License DPR-12 ML20151Y2901998-08-31031 August 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for Aug 1998 for Pbaps,Units 2 & 3. with ML20238F2661998-08-24024 August 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 222 to License DPR-44 ML20237B9531998-08-10010 August 1998 Specification for ISI Program Third Interval,Not Including Class Mc,Primary Containment for Bpaps Units 2 & 3 ML20237A7761998-08-10010 August 1998 SER Accepting Licensee Response to NRC Bulleting 95-002, Unexpected Clogging of RHR Pump Strainer While Operating in Suppression Pool Cooling Mode ML20237A5351998-07-31031 July 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for July 1998 for Pbaps,Units 2 & 3 ML20236R8281998-07-15015 July 1998 Safety Evaluation Approving Proposed Alternative (one-time Temporary non-Code Repair) Pursuant to 10CFR50.55a(a)(3) (II) ML20236M3471998-06-30030 June 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for June 1998 for Pbaps,Units 2 & 3 ML20249C4791998-06-0202 June 1998 Rev 6 to COLR for PBAPS Unit 2 Reload 11,Cycle 12 ML20248F4781998-06-0101 June 1998 Corrected Page 1 to SE Supporting Amends 221 & 226 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively.Original Page 1 of SE Had Three Typos ML20248F7441998-05-31031 May 1998 Reactor Vessel Working Group,Response to RAI Regarding Reactor Pressure Vessel Integrity ML20248M3001998-05-31031 May 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for May 1998 for Pbaps,Units 2 & 3 ML20247N5351998-05-11011 May 1998 SER Accepting Third 10-year Interval Inservice Program for Pump & Valves for Plant,Units 2 & 3 ML20249C4751998-05-0707 May 1998 Rev 5 to COLR for PBAPS Unit 2 Reload 11,Cycle 12 ML20247G0721998-04-30030 April 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for Apr 1998 for Pbaps,Units 2 & 3 1999-09-30
[Table view] |
Text
?
f jog UNITED STATES g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O g('(:: np WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 v 4,o8 SAFETY EMLUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION _
PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3 INTERIM SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY SYSTEM (NUREG-0737, I.D.2)
DOCKET NOS. 50-277 AND 50-278 I. BACKGROUND In response to the requirements for a Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) identified in Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737, a Safety Analysis (Ref.1) on the Peach Bottom SPDS was submitted for staff review. The staff reviewed the Safety Analysis and also conducted an audit of the Peach Botton SPDS. The results from these efforts served as the basis of the staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER), Reference 2.
The SER stated the staff was unable to confirn that Peach Botton SPDS met NRC requirements. The Philadelphia Electric Company's (licensee)
SPDS consisted of existing instruments located at various points in the control room, but did not incorporate acceptable human factors engineering principles, and did not include an effective means to validate data. In addition, the staff raised questions on the need to monitor additional variables and the need for information on the adequacy of the isolation devices. The licensee requested a meeting to discuss these findings and conclusions, and on June 14, 1985, met with the NRC. Minutes of the meeting are presented in Reference 3.
During the June 14, 1985 meeting, the licensee provided the staff with additional information on the SPDS. The licensee identified plans to install a new, process-control computer at the plant and associated computer assisted SPDS. The licensee also discussed modifications to the existing SPDS to have it serve as an interim SPDS during the design, development, and installation of a computer-based SPDS. The NRC staff stated that further review of the Peach Bottom interim SPDS t.as warranted, and we requested the licensee to docket information on the status of the new process computer, which the licensee did (Ref. 4).
II.
SUMMARY
The staff's review of the licensee's existing SPDS concludes that the system is acceptable for operational use as the interim SPDS until the design.and installation of the computer-based SPDS is completed. All of the interim SPDS instruments conforn to the category 1 criteria of Regulatory Guide 1.97, except for Neutron Flux. The SPDS indication for -
neutron flux is a non-safety recorder. The isolation device used at the interface between the flux sensor and the recorder is a fuse and voltage -
divider. This device was reviewed and found acceptable during the 3250462 860312 p ADOCK 05000277 PDR 3
licensing review of Peach Bctton, therefore, we conclude that this _
device is acceptable for the interim SPDS. However, during the des ~ign, .
development, and installation of the new computer-based SPDS, qualified isolation devices must be installed at this interface.
III. EVALUATION Human Factors Engineering Principles The staff's initial review of the Peach Bottom SPDS design concluded that it did not incorporate human facters engineering principles so as not to mi, lead operators during accidents. During the June 14, 1985 meeting with the staff, the licensee stated that the ongoing Control
. Room Design Review (CRDR) will evaluate the specific human factors concerns identified by the staff on the interim SPDS.
In Reference 4, the licensee states that since the analog-based SPDS will be replaced with a computer-based SPDS, specific human factor concerns addressed in the Control Room Design Review will be addressed from the viewpoint of an indicating SPDS instrument. The licensee also states that a task analysis of the SPDS function and major hardware changes to resolve the human factors concerns related to the SPDS function will be deferred since the new computer-based SPDS will receive its own human factors evaluation as required by Supplement 1 of f;UREG-0737. Design specifications for the new process-control computer are currently being developed by the licensee. Based on current outage schedule projections, the computer-based SPDS should be operational on Unit 2 by late 1989, and on Unit 3 by mid-1990.
During the June 14, 1985 meeting with personnel from Peach Bottom, the staff requested information on the cost and effort to install an SPDS independent of the new process-control computer. The licensee's response (Ref. 4) states that an SPDS independent of the process-control cceputer would add nearly two million dollars to the total cost of these modifications. The additional expense associated with incorporating the SPDS feature into the process computer is approximately 0.5 million dollars. The cost-benefit is in favor of incorporating the SPDS into the process-control computer.
During the interval between now and operation of the new computer-based SPDS, the licensee proposed that existing control room instruments serve as the-interim SPDS system with the following justifications:
. the system includes the key parameters needed by control room personnel for assessing whether abnormal conditions warrant corrective action by operators to avoid a degraded core; -
i the operators have been thoroughly trained on a simulator to -
respond to transients and emergency conditions using existing control room instruments and redundant instruments on other panels in the control room; n- . .. . - . - - - . - _ - _ - . . .
u -
- following completion of the upcoming Unit 3 outage, all SPDS sensors will be environmentally and seismically qualified in accordance with the licensee's commitment on Regulatory Guide 1.97.
Based on this information, the staff concludes that the interim SPDS is acceptable until the new computer-based SPDS consistent with the stated schedule is installed and declared operational. However, we request the licensee submit for staff review the human factors program used in the design of the computer-based SPDS. In addition, the results from the task analysis of the SPDS function should also be submitted for staff review.
Data Validation The staff's initial review of the interim SPDS concluded that the design did not include an effective means to validate data. During the June 14, 1985 meeting, the licensee stated that for most variables within the interim SPDS, the instrument loops are safety-related circuits. It was further stated that all sensors except one in Unit 3 are environmentally and seismically qualified, and this one remaining sensor is being replaced with a qualified sensor (to meet Regulatory Guide 1.97 requirements) during the current Unit 3 refueling outage.
The use of instruments that meet Regulatory Guide 1.97 requirements make the interim SPDS a reliable system. The staff's audit of the interim SPDS found that the redundant instruments used to validate the readings from the principal instruments of the interin SPDS were not located near the principal instruments. The lack of a concise display was the basis of our conclusion that the design does not include an effective means to validate data.
The relocation of the redundant instruments to a position near.the 1 principal instruments to facilitate data validation is not a practical !
solution. The operators have been thoroughly trained to respond to transients and emergency conditions using the interim SPDS and redundant instruments. Based on this training, the staff concludes that these practices should serve to validate data from the interim SPDS.
In the. design of the computer-based SPDS, the staff recommends the licensee use signals from redundant sensors for a process variable in validating data prior to display. Furthermore, the licensee should submit.'for staff review a description of the algorithm to be used in ,
valida&ing data. Also, the licensee should submit for staff review the . l design verification and validation program to be used in the design and l development of the computer-based SPDS. The staff will review this .
information to confirm that the data displayed are valid and to ensure the development of a reliable display system. The results from our review will be presented in a future SER. l
Parameter Sele: tion The NRC staff's evaluation (Ref. 2) of the Peach Bottom SPDS included followup items regarding the addition of a more direct indication of neutron flux and radioactivity release rate. In its August 9, 1985 letter, the licensee stated that the current Source Range Monitor (SRM) indication will be designated as part of the interim SPDS. The licensee also designated the APRMs as part of the interim SPDS. For the Radioactivity Control Critical Safety Function, the licensee has identified offgas and vent stack radiation indication and drywell high-range radiation as part of the interim SPDS. The staff concludes that the commitnent to include these additional variables is responsive to the staff and is acceptable. We note that the interim SPDS includes only Group I (Main Steam) isolation valves in the containment isolation status display. We recommend that the licensee include additional 1 isolation valve groupings in the development of the new, computer-based SPDS. By monitoring the status of all isolation. valves, there is assurance that known process systems pathways have been secured.
! Electrical and Electronic Isolation The staff's review of the licensee's interim SPDS was incomplete because of insufficient information on the adequacy of the isolation devices within SPDS design. In the August 9, 1985 submittal, the licensee states that several instruments selected for the interim SPDS are treated as safety-related circuits from the sensors up to and including the interim SPDS indicators. No isolation devices are'used in these circuits to separate the interim SPDS from the sensors.
All of the interim SPDS instruments conform to the category 1 criteria of Regulatory Guide 1.97, except for Neutron Flux. -The SPDS indication for neutron flux is a non-safety recorder. The isolation device used at the interface between the flux sensor and the recorder is a fuse and voltage divider. This device was reviewed and found acceptable during the licensing review of Peach Bottom, therefore, we conclude that this device is acceptable for the interim SPDS. However, during the design, development, and installation of the new computer-based SPDS, qualified isolation devices must be installed at this interface.
In the. licensee's design of the computer-based SPDS, the staff will require data on the isolation devices used in the design. The staff plans to review the data to determine if the SPDS is suitably isolated from electrical or electronic interference with equipment and sensors that awe in use for safety systems (Supplement 1, NUREG-0.737). The ,
results from the staff's review will be presented in a future SER.
~
Dated: March 12,1986 l Principal Contributor: L. Beltracchi l L
- . - - - - .-. ,_. - ,. _ _ , - - , - - --,f - ,
l.
1 i
IV. REFERENCES ,
1.
Letter from J. W. Gallagher, Philadelphia Electric Cempany, to D. G ,Eisenhut, NRC,
Subject:
Safety Parameter Display System, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, dated September 28, 1983.
- 2. Letter from H. L. Thompson, NRC, to E. G. Bauer, Jr., Philadelphia Electric Company,
Subject:
Review of Philadelphia' Electric Company's Safety Analysis and the NRC Staff's Audit of the Peach Bottom Safety Parameter Display System, dated April 3, 1985.
- 3. Letter from G. E. Gears, NRC, to Licensee: Philadelphia Electric Company, Facility: Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3,
Subject:
Summary. of Meeting With Philadelphia Electric Company Proposed Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) At the Peach Bottom Facility, dated July 2,1985. ,
4 Letter from J. S. Kemper, Philadelphia Electric Company, to H. L. Thompsco, NRC,
Subject:
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3, Safety Parameter Display System, dated August 9,1985.
e
~
l s
<l
( *% l