IR 05000528/1981016
| ML17297B002 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 10/16/1981 |
| From: | Fiorelli G, Zwetzig G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17297B001 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-528-81-16, NUDOCS 8111050632 | |
| Download: ML17297B002 (8) | |
Text
~
~
.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION V
Report No.
Docket No.
Licensee:
License No.
Safeguards Group Facility Name:
Inspection at:
Inspection conducted:
Inspectors:
G. Fiorelli, nior Resident Xnspector Unit
Date Signed Date Signed Approved By:
Summary:
Date Signed G
Z tzi, hief, Reactor Proj ects Section 1,
Date Si ned Reactor Operations Projects Branch Xns ection one'e'mber 1-30, 1981 (Re ort No. 50-528/81-16).
Areas Ins ected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by the resident inspector of activities associated with: preoperational testing, quality assurance, installations of plant systems, plant main-tenance, and operator training.
The inspection involved
inspector-hours on-site by the resident inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
eo 0>oaag=---=-
8j 8 " 4bOCg>>SOi-- --
OSPe
~oooo
Pn RV Form 219 (2)
DETAILS Persons Contacted a.,Arizona Public Service Com an APS)
F.
W. Hartley, Nuclear Operations Manager W.
B. McClane, Startup Manager C.
N. Russo, Operations Quality Assurance (QA) Manager S. Moyers, Maintenance Superintendent M.
T.: Sweigart, QA Specialist B. Yant, Lead Startup Engineer T. Olshefsky, Startup Engineer b.
Mem his State Universit Dr.
S.
P.
Langa, Assistant to the, Director for PVNGS Educational Programs ualit Assurance A preliminary review was made of the startup and operations quality assurance (QA) pxogram.
The QA organization manager reports diectly to the Manager of Nuclear Operations.
The organization conducts inspections, audits and monitoring of ongoing preoperational testing and reactor operations activities as well as develops procedures and checklists.
The organiza-tion consists of three units each headed by a supervisor.
The organization currently has 10 people assigned, but this staff will be augmented as the nuclear units approach operating status.
A check of the qualifications of the assigned individuals confirmed their qualifications are'onsistent with the commit-ments in the FSAR.
Job~ descriptions are av'ailable, as is documented information';xelated to staff qualifications, work experience, and training.
In addition.;
procedures are devel-oped which describe te~pxogram fox 'QA,;s'Raff-certification.
A review of records'onfi'rmed the licensee's implementation of these procedures.'-.
The inspector accompanied o'e of"the auditors on, two audits involving assessments~
of,,'p'r'eopexational",.'test,-'controls.
It was noted that check 3.iet's,w'ere,used,and
.that" th'e auditor was both knowledgeable iand thor'ough in the~execution of his
.,reviews.
- .,
",,<l,'everal findings deali'ng w'ith, i'mplementation,og tagging and documentation controls~w'ere made
.by, the-APS".auditor and will
, be reported to APS management for >th'eir resolutio.0 (('
/
'
t;
<<t, (
I t
C t g I
<<
((-
(p I
I I
~<<l',
I'1'1
'I l
(
- ) I.
Ii C
I
i (
!
li I
I (I II
Master schedules are developed and used in the conduct of inspections, audits, and monitorin'g.
Procedures exist which identify QA as having prime responsibility for the follow-up of identified nonconformances.
Based on review of several audit reports and discussions with the APS staff, the inspector concluded that follow-up.on resolution of identified problems was being conducted by QA.
The inspector informed the QA manager that training in the use of specific audit checklists would enhance consistency in understanding what was hrequired by the inspection or audit effort.
This matter is to be factored into the evolving QA program.
The need fox clarification of certain QA program responsibilities and activities was also brought to the attention of the QA managex.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
S stem Turnover Several of the existing procedures governing the turnover of components and subsystems from Bechtel construction to the applicant's startup test.group are undergoing upgrading.
Only a few safety related systems (electrical),
however, have been turned over to date.
Program controls include two walk downs prior to tuxnover by Bechtel and APS, during which time incomplete or nonconforming items are identified and entered into a master tracking system for,the affected subsystem.
Responsibilities for controls such as tagging, logging and follow-up of nonconformances/exceptions, reviewing and, approving of documentation'ackages, subsystem scoping, requests for work by Bechtel craftper'sonsand APS maintenance, and acceptance of subsystems have been.identified.
Implement-ing procedures exist fox, the work being c'arried,out although, as noted above, some axe undergoing,xevision.
'I I
II
)
I A review of the class 1E'-125V battery system (turne'd over to APS) indicated that, improved controls, were, needed to assure the quality of systems which had been, turned over.
The applicant's represen'tative indicated:they were aware of this problem and were taking steps to'correct it.
)
I No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
I Plant Tours Several tours of Unit 1 were made during the month.
Control of ignition sources, cleanliness, equipment storage, equipment tagging, and instrumentation installations appeared adequat t lt I
.C I
p K
I l
I E. ~
P..
n'
4f J
fI
<<J
)s x>>
I il I
)
t"
I, l
a
No items, of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Safet In ection S stems Continued walk downs of these systems did not reveal any additional exceptions from those already noted.
(Inspection report 50-528/81-13.)
One item which had been previously identified, the use 'of a wrong color label on a control room flow indicator, had been corrected by Bechtel.
No items of noncomplicance or deviations were identified.
6.
~Trafkkin The inspector observed a portion of a training session dealing with'hermodynamics.
This advanced course was being given to Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) candidates by an instructor from Memphis State University (MSU).
MSU has been contracted to give classroom instruction to RO and SRO candidates in preparation for operator licensing.
The inspector, in discussions with representatives from MSU, suggested that, where practical, instructors should draw on reactor-related phenomenon, processes, and conditions to as. sist in demonstrating the application of thermodynamic principles.
7.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Exit Interviews The inspector met with the Startup Manager on September ll and 29, 1981, and with Nuclear Operations Manager on September 18, 1981, and discussed the findings of the insp'ection.
The in-spector stressed the ne'ed'or finalizing "st'artup:group pro-cedures befoxe safety.related'.systems were 'ready,to be turned, over to APS.
The applicant's response:-to,remarks concerning system turnover control a'ctivities was pos'itive.
1(
('
fi l(k
~ 4 k
c II
$
k
I
I l
I(
I
I.
II I
I 'g P
I P.
LI I
II
}
!P'
r V I I
I IP I l
J
}',
P L
I I
I'.
Pl
~I I
I I
III t,L I
II P