IR 05000528/1982015
| ML20054F163 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 05/27/1982 |
| From: | Johnston P, Willett D, Zwetzig G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054F161 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-528-82-15, NUDOCS 8206150272 | |
| Download: ML20054F163 (3) | |
Text
-. -.... - - -.....
,
- - -
.
.
.e
~
_
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISION
REGION V
'
Report No. 50-528/82-15 Docket flo. 50-528 License No. CPPR-141 Safeguards Group
.
-
Licensee: Arizona Public Service Company P. O. Box 21666 Phoenix, Arizona 85036 Facility Name:
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station - Unit 1 Inspection at: Palo Verde Site (Wintersburg, AZ)
Inspection conducted: April 26-28, 1982 e-
,
Inspectors:
h L/
5-J11-S'2-
-._
gP. H. JoMson,' Reactor Inspector Date Signed X
YY
'i-27-3 2.
=
Aww
,AT.'J.Willett,)ieactorInspector Date Signed
-
).-
Approved by:
'..
M../
J _.21-72
'}G. B. ZWetzig, Chief, Reactor Operations Projects Date Signed Section 1
- =
--:
,
Summary:
'
Inspection on April 26-28, 1982 (Report No. 50-528/82-15)
a y
Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection of plant procedures, training, and general status of oreparations for the operating phase. The inspection
,
involved 38 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors.
-
.
=
Results:
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
__=
m
-
I_
8206150272 820527 PDR ADOCV. 05000528 O
_-
__ _________ _ ______________ ______ _ __-____--____-_ - _ _ _ _ _ - - -. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.__ __ _ ____
.
.
%
s.
DETAILS
' (
1.
Persons Contactsd
- G. C. Andognini, Vice President, Electric Operations i
- J. M. Allen, Technical Support Manager-
- C. N. Russo, Operations Quality Assurance Manager
- W. F. Fernow, ' Administrative Support Manager
- J. E. Kirby, Operations and Maintenance Manager
~
- W. B. McLane, Startup Manager
'
- T. C. Cotton, Engineering Manager
- R. W. Kramer, Licensing Supervisor
-
- R. A. Bernier, Operations Manager
- R. Adney, Operations Supervisor
- F. E. Hic 6s, Training Nanager The inspector also talkqd with other individuals, including engineers, licensed operators, and training personnel.
',
- Denotes those present bt the exit interview.
'
'
'
2.
General.
Significant changes in the facility's organizational structure had occurred since the previous inspection. These included relocation 4~.
of the Vice President'- Electric Operations to the Palo Verde site (as acting Nuclear Operations Manager) and the establishment of an additional tier of management reporting directly to the Nuclear Operations Manager.
Some redefinition of responsibilities, authorities, and methods was still
taking place. As a result, inspection activity in most areas was limited.
.
'
3.
Plant Procedures
,
,
,
'
i Inspection Report 50-528/82-05 itemized comments presented to the
,1 applicant regarding revisions 1 and 2 of-Station Manual Procedure
'"
70AC-0ZZ02, " Review and Approval of Station Procedure." Examination of a draft of Revision 3 showed that some of the comments had been incorporated, while others had not. Comments presented on draft Revision 3 were as follows (82-15-01):
a.
The scope of procedures requiring Plant Review Board (PRB)
i review was less inclusive than section 6.8.1 of the Proposed Technical Specifications, b. Section 5.2.7 used the term " implementing procedures," which was
g not defined in Section 3.0.
'
s W
k k
...
'
,,e e
.
-2-c.
-The wording of Sections 5.5.4 through 5.5.7 did not provide adequate clarity on which procedures go to the PRB and which are reviewed by tne PRB Procedure Review Group.
d.
Although the concept of using the PRB Procedure Review Group appeared to be a very workable one, the acceptability of this method will be contingent upon consistency with the Technical Specifications when they are issued with the operating license.
The listing in Appendix A to the procedure should be reviewed e.
to ensure that all administrative procedures required by the NRC (e.g., by Regulatory Guide 1.33) are included.
f.
Appendix B, the procedure preparation record, may not provide adequate control as presently written.to ensure that temporary -
changes.to procedures receive required PRB and management reviews within the allowed time period.
g.
Minor comments were presented on Appendix G, the flow chart showing the procedure review and approval process.
h.
Also refer to coments 3.a, b, d, e, f, g, and 5.b(5) in Inspection Report No. 82-06, which are still pertinent.
.
The applicant also made a presentation on the diagnostic approach being used in the preparation of emergency procedures. The procedares
'
had been written and were being validated during operator training in the Palo Verde simulator.
Based upon observation of'the ' simulator training and discussions with those preparing and using the procedures, the concepts appeared to be quite effective. The inspectors noted that discussion of the energency procedures with cognizant persons in NRR might also be worthwhile.
No noncompliance items or deviations were identified.
4.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with APS representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at-the close of the inspection. The inspection' findings identified in paragraph 3 were discussed.
._ _
_
_
_
. _ _. _ _ _..
__
_
.