IR 05000528/1982018
| ML20054L689 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 06/17/1982 |
| From: | Johnson P, Zwetzig G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054L683 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-528-82-18, NUDOCS 8207080367 | |
| Download: ML20054L689 (4) | |
Text
.
Y
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATJRY COMMISSION
~
&
--
REGION V
Report No.
50-528/82-18
,,
Docket No.
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, Arizona)
Inspection conducted:
June 8-10, 1982
..
Inspectors:b N624'n 1./
h4 /7 /ML
'
(.'H.Vohnson, \\!leactor Inspector y
Date Signed Date Signed
.
Approved by:
[s M i 1 11 f ~2-G4) B. Q)etzigd Criiet, iteactor Operations Projects (
Date Signed Section 1 Summary:
Inspection on June 8-10,1982 (Report No. 50-528/82-18)
Areas inspected: Routine, announced inspection of plant procedures and safety committee activities. The inspection involved 19 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results:
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
8207000367 020618 RV Form 219 (2)
PDR ADOCK 03000
-
-
..;
%
.
DETAILS
.
1.
Persons Contacted
- G. C. Andognini, Vice President, Electric Operations
- J. M. Allen, Technical Support Manager T. L. Cotton, Engineering Manager
- W.
F.' Fernow, Administrative Support Manager
- J. E. Kirby, Maintenance and Operations Manager
- R. W. Kramer, Licensing Supervisor
- W. B. McLane, Start-Up Manager
- G. E. Pankonin, Start-Up Quality Assurance Manager W. F. Quinn, Supervising Engineer, Licensing
- C. N. Russo, Operations Quality Assurance Manager
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting.
2.
Safety Committees The organization and functions of the Plant Review Board (PRB) and Safety Audit Committee (SAC) were examined.
It was noted that a new chairman had been assigned to both comittees as a result of recent changes in the applicant's organizational structure. Other findings related to the reviews were as follows:
a.
Plant Review Board Examination of the PRB Charter, Revision 3, showed that Section 4.0 did not adequately reflect the review requirements of the proposed Technical Specifications, sections 6.5.1.6.a (all procedures and programs required by Specification 6.8) and 6.5.1.6.K (Core Protection Calculator addressable constants) (82-18-01). Certain comments documented in paragraph-5.b of NRC Inspection Report 50-528/82-06 were also still pertinent.
b.
Safety Audit Committee A draft revision to the SAC charter was examined, and comments were presented to the chairman.
The revised charter will be examined further when issued in approved form. Minutes of the SAC meeting at the Palo Verde Site on May 11-12, 1982, were also reviewed.
These indicated that several training sessions had been presented (e.g., Emergency Plan,10 CFR 50.59, General Employee Training, Security).
Additional topics, not currently defined in the charter or written procedures, were also discussed:
)
.
3.
-2-Indoctrination of SAC members (including alternates and future
-
new members) (82-18-02).
-
SAC audit responsibilities (82-18-03).
No noncompliance items or deviations were identified.
3.
Plant Procedures The inspector examined Revision 3 and a rough draft of a further revision to Procedure 70AC-0ZZ02, " Review and Approval of Station Procedures."
Several earlier coments were noted to have been incorporated. The following additional comments were presented to the applicant (82-18-04):
a.
The functioning of the Procedure Review Group was discussed (e.g.,
will the group perform its reviews by routing procedures or in meetings?).
This was to be further defined by the applicant.
b.
Section 5.7 should include Programs for PRB review.
c.
Section 5.10 - Proposed Technical Specification (PTS) do not allow an expedited review (two members of management, one of whom is an SR0) for new procedures. The applicant was concerned about possible need for expedited issuance of temporary procedures in some situations, such as during backshift maintenance, and planned to study this further within the Procedure Review Group concept.
d.
Section 5.10 - The applicant was considering a procedure " change" format, which would result in the issuance of page changes (procedure
" revisions" would result in complete reissuance of the procedure).
The inspector stated that PTS would permit this, but would require the same degree of review for procedures, revisions, and changes (except " temporary changes" issued pursuant to PTS Section 6.8.3).
Issuance of page changes would also necessitate the issuance of a list of effective pages.
e.
Section 5.11 - The procedure did not clearly define who will perform and sign off on periodic procedure reviews.
f.
Some conments identified in NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-528/82-06 and 82-15 were still pertinent.
No noncompliance items or deviations were identified.
4.
Exit Interview The inspector met with APS representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)
at the close of the inspection. The inspection findings identified in paragraphs 2 and 3 were discussed. The inspector stated that development of proposed Technical Specifications should proceed consistent with
.
.
-3-the SAC, PRB, and procedure review policies being formulated. The applicant replied that this was being done. A management representative also stated that a listing of plant procedures required for the operating phase (including those already issued) would be provided to the inspector.
.
T
._