IR 05000528/1985042
| ML17299A994 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 02/04/1986 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17299A993 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-528-85-42, 50-529-85-42, 50-530-85-29, NUDOCS 8602100281 | |
| Download: ML17299A994 (2) | |
Text
~.
BS021002ai SeoaOO PDR ADOCK 05000528
PDR 2.
Plant Status Unit Three:
Prerequisite and Pre-operational testing was in progress on all major systems with the exception of Reactor Coolant, Steam Generator and Auxiliary Feedwater Systems.
Flushing of the Essential Cooling Water System was nearing completion.
Filling of the Safety Injection System was begun in preparation for system flushing.
The next major milestone on the licensee's schedule is Primary Hydro.
Construction completion of Unit 3 is estimated at 98K by the licensee.
3.
Licensee Action on a NRC issued Notice of Violation Unit No.
(Closed) Notice of Violation No. 50-529/84-08/02,
"HVAC Boltin, Shimmin and Weldin The inspector had previously identified that four HVAC supports contained bolting, shimming, and welding deficiencies which deviated from the design drawings.
The licensee responded to this violation on May 9, 1984, indicating the root cause of the discrepant supports was a misinterpretation and/or nonconformance of existing Bechtel criteria.
The licensee's evaluation further determined that a reportable condition existed with respect to this deficiency, and on March 13, 1984, issued Deficiency Evaluation Report (DER) No. 84-13 in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e) reporting requirements.
DER No. 84-13 was reviewed and closed in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-528/85-01.
The inspector reviewed DER No. 84-13 and the documentation related to this identified discrepancy, and determined that the licensee had initiated a walkdown of all accessible safety-related, important to safety, and potentially hazardous condition duct supports (non-safety-related over safety-related duct supports).
The non-accessible duct supports were defined as those supports that could not be inspected due to the covering of fire-proofing material.
However, the licensee's inspection results concluded that, because of the small percentage (2.8X) of duct supports found to require rework, a high confidence existed that the non-inspected duct supports would perform as intended.
Additionally, the type of rework performed tended to be very minor in nature for the reworked supports.
Subsequent to this finding, the licensee revised all design drawings to ensure that sufficient detail existed to prevent improper installation and misinterpretation of the drawings by the installers.
Based on the licensee's corrective actions as indicated above and the inspectors'xamination of the licensee's stated actions, this item is close