IR 05000528/1976001

Insp Repts 50-528/76-01,50-529/76-01 & 50-530/76-01 on 760428-30.No Deficiencies Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Const Procedures

ML20134A885
Person / Time
Site:	05000000, Palo Verde
Issue date:	05/19/1976
From:	Pate R, Spencer G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML17198A269	List: IR 05000335/1978013 IR 05000389/1974001 IR 05000389/1975001 IR 05000389/1975002 IR 05000389/1975003 IR 05000389/1975004 IR 05000389/1975005 IR 05000389/1976001 IR 05000389/1976002 IR 05000389/1976003 IR 05000528/1974002 IR 05000528/1975001 IR 05000528/1976001 IR 05000528/1976003 IR 05000528/1976004 IR 05000528/1977003 IR 05000528/1977004 IR 05000528/1978001 IR 05000528/1978002 L-75-187, Requests Encl Portion of Insp Rept 50-389/75-01 Be Withheld from Public Disclosure.Previous Ltr Should Be Disregarded.W/O Encl L-76-328, Informs That Insp Rept 50-389/76-01 Contains No Proprietary Info L-76-397, Informs That Insp Rept 50-389/76-02 Contains No Proprietary Info L-78-288, Advises That FSAR & Environ Rept Submittal Date Revised to Mar 1980 Due to Reduction in Const Schedule ML20132B481 ML20134A440 ML20134A478 ML20134A520 ML20134A530 ML20134A568 ML20134A594 ML20134A596 ML20134A616 ML20134A626 ML20134A633 ML20134A662 ML20134A696 ML20134A715 ML20134A832 ML20134A857 ML20134A862 ML20134A988 ML20134B013 ML20134B146 ML20134B169 ML20134B200 ML20134B222 ML20134B262 ML20134B267 ML20134B289 ML20134B389 ... further results
References
FOIA-84-293 50-528-76-01, 50-528-76-1, 50-529-76-01, 50-529-76-1, 50-530-76-01, 50-530-76-1, NUDOCS 8508150455
Download: ML20134A885 (7)

Text

.

.

.

.

U. S b"J' L 7. A.. i w L/.TCRY CCIC'ISS!!N 0rr.. Cr 7E: ;05 A';D INF0F.cEFIN-

'

PIGION V

.

-

'

.

.

IE Inspection Report No. 50-525, 529, 530/76-01 Licensee Arizona Public Service Cercanv Docket No.50-592 sn. cog, 50-530

-

'

P. O. Box 21656 Licensa No.

--

-

-

"

Phoenix, Arizona 85025 Priority

+

A Facility Palo Verde Units 1 '3 Category

.'

Location hekeye. Arizona

.

.

-

.

Type of Tacility Ph'Rs (CE)

'

R0utir.e. Urarnounced Type of Inspection Datos of Inspectica

.'.-ri'

?c. oc t 1q. ic7e Dates of Previcus Irspection July I & 2,1975

8//9/6 Principal Inspector A

R. J. Fate. P,cactor Inspector

' Data

.

Accc:panying Inspectors fMaa Data

.

Data Other /.ccc=panying Porsennois fieno

...!. s. ' * * --

Reviewed by

,

u. a. apencvi..n b:

r.cactor Lant,truttton and Data Engineering Support Dr. inch 000703

'

,

II

.g43 l'

,

.

,e

. - - -..

. -

.

.

.

.

.

-

s

__

'

.

,

I Sulf'.ARY

'

Enforcement A: tion

fio applicable.

Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items flot appiicable.

.

Current Sienificent Findines The schedule for construction procedures ray not be met.

Completion of selected construction procedures is required before quality related construction activities begin.

(Paragrapn 5 of Details)

Status of Previously Identified Unresolved items A.

The following concerns identified during the previous inspection.

l were examined and closed out.

.

1.

The records of the training and orientation of audit team l

merters 5.ere being taintained.

(llo reference)

l 2.

An audit of the Bechtel Power Corporation (Eechtol) in the

!

area of instructions, procedures, and drawings was conducted

-

-

by Arizona Public Service (APS).

(flo reference)

3.

The Project Procedure f(S '3 was revised to indicate the authority of the Weiear Services l'anager (Assistant Project Director)

(

l in assi;nin; levels of document review.

(l:oreference)

4.

The require ent for safeguarding important one-of a-kind QA

,

docu.ents was inccrporated into Project Procedure (15 1.

(flo reference)

C.

The schacule fer APS audits of tne trajor contractors was revised.

Powever, this ite, will rce,ain open until continued experience (nows tre re/isec senecule will to impicmented.

(Paragrapn 3 of Details)

,

lisnagement Interviev,:

The results of the inspection were discussed with lietsrs. Van 0 runt, Robb, Hand and Allen.

The folloaing is a sure.ory of the discussion, q

.

-

.

.

.

2-

A.

The followup of items identified during the previous inspection was discussed.

It was noted tnat all items were closed except for the continued revica of the ir,21er.entation of the revised audit schedule.

(Paragraph 3ofCetails)

8.

The review of the ccnstru: tion procedures was discussed.

The need for a procedure for storage of site records irrportant to quality was identified. APS r.:anagement stated that a records handling system including a proced.re reviewed and accepted.b/ APS would be in place t.nen tne first 4. alit / records were received on site.

(Paragraph,5. A of Details; C.

The schedule for constructicn procedures issued by Bochtel April 9, 1976 was discussed.

It a;peared the schedule for some of the procedures needed for quality related activities may not be con-sistent with tne project schedule.

APS management stated that the schedule for tre prc:st;res w:uld be reviewed and appropriate action would :e take.1.

Additionally, APS canagement again e?,-

pha:ized that no 42111t/ related work would be started witr.out precedures revie'..ec and a::ep:ed b/ APS.

(Paragraph 5.8ofDetails)

D.

Tne revica of constructice procedures by APS appeared to have incer.plete docu?ontation. APS rnanagement stated that the APS Site l'anager was respsnsible for the review of the construction pro-

cedures and would insure ;reper review and documentation.

(Para-graph 5.CofCetails)

E.

C'c !.C A-ts:

snt ' cf the Palo Verde QA Manual lists several Becntel and C:*..:.stian En;ineering documents'which APS will review, l

co. ment and 4::4,; ' as re;uired." APS nanager/ent stated that "as required" wss useJ tacau:t unen the CA Itanual'was written it was not known uiten cf tno cc:u..onts or sections of dc:yment:..ould apply to Pale '.erte.

H: waver, at this point in the project, rest of the docu ants >sve toen reviewed as required and APS can define wnicn docu ant (3, :r se:t on(:) must be accepted and whetner or not d

it has been ac:::tec.

AFI maragerant stated they would have this infcrc ation 6 'at'a:1e for revios at the next fiP.C inspection.

(Paragraph 4ofOstatis)

F.

Thero is an ap;arent cor.?ft.?,ont in the PSAft for audits of UUS Corporation to hsve teen tendacted since October 15,1974.

APS manage..ent : sted teo/ ucald review the requiro"ont and the records before taltry a stateront in :nis arca.

(Paragraph 4ofOctails)

.

.

I

_ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _

e

.

.

3-

.

G.

Improper filing of Palo Verde documents was identified by APS.

The schedule for corrective action was discussed.

APS management stated tnat tM files wovic be put in proper order as soon,as possible ustr.g the current fluelear Services staff on an overtime basis.

(fio reference)

'

'

.

,

/

.

i

9

• *

,

,

.

a i

.

!

l

.

$

b t

-

_ - - - _. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _

_

_ _ _ _ _ _

. _ _ _ _ _

_

_

__ __

. _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

__

_ _ _ _ _ _

.

DETAILS 1.

Dersons Contacted

'

E. E. VanBrunt, Jr., Vice President Nuclear Services R. L. Robb, Assistan: Project Director R. Hand, Site QA Supervisor W. M. Petro, Site Construction Manager W. L. Hurst, Senior Civil Engineer J. M. Allen, Licensing Engineer J. R. Mann, Health Physicist

.

2.

Organization Mr. Hand joined the Nuclear Services staff mid-January 1976.

He has been assigned the position o'f Site QA Supervisor and will be located at the site when the site construction offices are ready.

Preparation of the site offices is scheduled for ccmpletion in early May 1976.

3.

Audit Schedule The revised audit schedule for the audits conducted' by APS QA was revie..ed.

The audit schedule appeared to address the appropriate Appendix B criteria.

However, since APS has delegated a large part of the QA requirements to the major contractors and will rely on addits to verify the"' implementation of these requirements, the NRC

~

inspector has elected to leave this item open until more experience l

shows the. revised schedule.will be fully implemented.

4.

PSAR Revie..

Selected portions of the Palo Verde PSAR were reviewed and the commitnen;s :c.ade by APS were identified.

Generally, evidence could be found to verify that tne requirements in the PSAR were met.

The outstanding cuestions that resulted from this review cre as follows:

i t

'!hich decur.ients listed in QAD 5.0, Attachment A should be a.

.

reviewed and accepted by APS?

!

b.

The last audit of NUS Corporation appears to ha.. been October 15, f

1974.

Inis does not seen to meet the requirerc-made in Amendment 7 of the PSAR dated June 2,1975 that erveillance and audits have been and are being conducted to tsure appropriate implementa icn (Page 17A-5G).

Have additional audits of NUS Corpora ion been condu:ted?

.

.....

,

- _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

---_

}

'

.

.

-5-

,

5.

Construction Procedures

.

The construction' procedures that had been submitted to APS,for J

review were examined.

These procedures appeared to cover the area addressed in adequate detail and included appropriate acceptance criteria.

However, during the review the following concerns were discussed.

.

a.

There was no procedure for storage of site QA records listed in the schedule for construction procedures.

APS personnel advised that a procedure for storage of site records was being prepared, but had nct been listed with the other construction procedures.. APS personnel stated that they would consider adding the records storage precedure to the schedule for construction procedures.

Special records storage file cabinets with a'4-hour fire rating were reported to be on order for use

.

at the site until the records vault is completed.

l b.

Several procedures were scheduled for completion about April 15, 1976 per the senedule issued April 9,1976 by Bechtel.

The importance of these procedures could not be assessed as only the procedure title indicated the area the procedure would,

cover.

However, as none of the procedures scheduled for about April 15, 1976 were reported to be more than 505 complete on April 9,1976, it appears likely these procedures will not be

.

. completed on schedule.

Also the NRC inspector noted that the.

procedures for raceiving concrete material and for concrete production coordir,ation are both scheduled for September 15,

.

1976.

Considering the 30 days allowed for the.APS review and acceptance, this wculd ma'ke these procedures available about October 15, 1976.

Assuming a Constructicn Fermit issue date

of about May 15, 1976, the need for these procedures may

,

precede tne final acceptance.

c.

The records of the review of construction procedures by APS seemed to be inccmplete.

The following was noted by the HRC inspector:

'

(1) The review of exhibits for procedures 'lPP-4, 5, 9 and 12 was request.ed on the review forms FAP-1.

All reviewers returned tne form with no comments.

One form was sent back without the signature of the reviewer.

No action had been initiated to have the review form properly signed.

..

"

-

-

-

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

.

_

.

.l

-

.

-6-

.

(2) The review of WPP/QCI 2, 2.2, 4, 5 and 10 was requested of several reviewers.

All reviewers returned the review form FAP-1, except one.

The return of this form Was approximately 30 days overdue and no followup action had been initiated.

6.

Site Activity The site was teured during the inspection.

The following activities were in progress:

Preparation of site construction offices (trailers).

a.

,

b.

Relocation of Wintersburg Road.

Placement of extensionometers for ground compaction monitoring.

c.

d.

Ground watering for dust control.

'fk) unauthorized activities were identified.

,

.

,

e

.

.

.

, - -

-.

.,. _