IR 05000528/1985025

Insp Rept 50-528/85-25 on 850624-0724.No Violation or Deviation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Action on Ler/Deficiency Evaluation Rept Interface,Power Ascension Test Data at 20% Power Plateau & Control Room Activities

ML20137A302
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	08/01/1985
From:	Andrew Hon, Miller L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML20137A267	List: IR 05000528/1985025 ML20137A263
References
50-528-85-25, NUDOCS 8508210383
Download: ML20137A302 (3)

Text

.

l

U. S. NUCLEAR. REGULATORY COMMISSION

'

-REGION V Report N /85-25 Docket N '

License N NPF-41

~

Licensee: Arizona Nuclear Power Project

,

-Post Office Box ~52034'

-

-

Phoenix,* Arizona 85072-2034

.

.i Facility Name: Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station - Unit 1 Inspection at: h>aloVerde! Site,2Wintersburg,~ Arizona Inspection conducted: [ - June 24 - July 24, 1985

,

Inspector: _' p- J f<P -

!? r A. H , Reactor Insp : tor Date Signed Approved By: l $ Hiller, Jr.@,ief D5te Signed'

Reac or Projects section 2 Summary:

Inspection on June 24 - July 24, 1985 (Report No. 50-528/85-25)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection by regional based inspector of licensee action on LER/ DER interface, power ascension test data at 20 percent power plateau, and control room activities. NRC Inspection Procedures 92700, 72600 and 71707 were covered. This' inspection involved 35 inspector hours onsite by one NRC inspecto Results: No violations or deviations were identifie B50005

' PDR ADOCK 05000528 G PDR n

- -~ - --

-

,

.

,-  ; ,

, .

. .

-

*

o I

,} ',.'

,',f;

.

,

. + - '

ri , ? ,

"

.

'

1 ,t 4 .. +

,

-kn -

• ',

, .

I.) . 4 +V

~

. - + ;' 4 . ,

EE  ; 1 DETAIL .. ,, .

-

..'

+"

Persons' Contacted

~

. n '. +

.

• J. G. Haynes,(Vice Pr'esidenti,1Nublear Production

• D. B. Karner,. Assistant to Vice\ President,. Nuclear Production

~

• E. Ide, Manager,' Corporate QA

"*J. Bynum,. Plant Manager -

,

• S. .Penick, Supervisor, Quality Monitoring ,

T. Bradish,< Supervisor, Quality Audits

• C. Emmett, Compliance Engineer .

• D. F. Hoppes, Reactor Engineer a, M. . Halpen, Shif t Supervisor

• R. P. Neville, Reactor Engineer ~

• J. Bayless, QA Engineer' ,

.'* Denotes those persons attending exit meeting on July 12,.198 '

The: inspector also interviewed licensee ~and contractor personnel during this inspectio i Licensee Event Report (LER) and Deficiency. Evaluation Report (DER)

' Interface ,

~

Several reportable DER's have been submitted to the NRC'per 10 CFR 50.55e since Unit-1 initial criticality. These DERs covered all three unit However, no LERs were submitted as a result of these DERs. The objective  ;

of this inspection was to verify that the licensee has'an effective program.to evaluate the impact.on Unit 1: operation of those DERs .

identified in Units: 2 and 3, and to evaluate them for LER reportability .

t per 10 CFR 50.7 The licensee's program for Unit 1 evaluation was documented in plant

~

procedure 6N417.18.00, " Review of Conditions Adverse to Quality for 10 ~

CFR 50.55e/10 CFR 21." Whenever a deficient condition was identified, the Unit.1 Shift Supervisor or Compliance Supervisor was' notified to review it for-its effects on' operational 1 safety. -A Potential Reportable

'

Occurrence (PRO) was issued, if necessary. .Each PRO was'then r'eviewed by

.

~

the Compliance Department for LER,reportability. Independently, the deficiency was evaluated.for Units 2 and 3 per 10 CFR 50.55e and 10 CFR 21 by Quality Systems 'and Engineering (QSE) personnel. _ Copies of

'the QSE document on the DER disposition.were also distributed to the Compliance Manager. The DER's generated to date were reviewed and were determined ~to be not reportable by'the Compliance Departmen The . inspector reviewed the above program and a sample of three DERs, and concluded that.the 10'CFR 50.73' reporting requirements were me No violations or deviations were, identified.

r

'

,

'

I

' '

'

,

t

!g 4 '

i . _]

.

,

. 2

.

- Data Review for Power Ascension' Tests at the 20 Percent Power Plateau The objective of this; inspection'was to verify that the licensee performed power . ascension tests and reviewed and accepted the test

.results according to applicable requirements and commitments. The

~

licensee's test data were' reviewed against the following criteria:

FSAR Chapter.14, " Initial Test Program"

CESSAR' Chapter 14, " Initial Test Program"

, Regulatory Guide 1.68, " Initial Test Programs for Water Cooled

'

Nuclear Power Plants" The inspector reviewed the Power Ascension Test Controlling Document, 72PA-12Z01, which was the-master document that listed all of the required tests and the sequence of the tests, prior to authorization to raise power above 20 percent. The inspector also reviewed ten individual test procedures which were available during the inspectio From the available documents, the inspector observed that test procedures and changes were approved according to pertinent administrative procedures, and test deficiencies were identified and recorded in Test Exception Reports and procedure change notices. The preliminary results of all of the planned tests were reviewed by the Test Result Review Group (TRRG) and determined to be acceptable prior to TRRG Chairman authorized ascension above 20 percent power.

l The inspector noticed, however, that some documentation of the tests

'

appeared incomplete. For example, the shutdown outside the control room test was deferred to 50 percent power level from the original 10 percent power level as decided by TRRG. However, neither the power ascension test controlling document nor the TRRG meeting minutes documented this deferment. The only place this was documented was a short, handwritten entry to the test log. The licensee agreed to strengthen the test data documentation. The inspector will. review the remaining program during future inspections. (0 pen Item 85-25-01) Control Room Activity Observation The inspector observed the activities in the control room during normal operation, and during an Unusual Event (unidentified leakage greater than 1 gpm). The inspector reviewed selected operating logs, procedure adherence, personnel communications, and staff preparation for planned actions. The conduct of the control room staif seemed cautious, proper and professiona . Exit Meeting

.

The exit meeting was conducted with the licensee personnel indicated in

. paragraph I on July 12, 1985. The scope and findings of the inspection as described in this report were discussed, i

l

_____o________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _