ML17297B480
| ML17297B480 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 10/01/1981 |
| From: | Bishop T, Eckhardt J, Fiorelli G, Kerrigan J, Vorderbrueggen, Wagner W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Faulkenberry B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17297B479 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8205040224 | |
| Download: ML17297B480 (41) | |
Text
<<~S RE0I!
(4
+4 0
se ClO se e
C O
e+
Op
++*++
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION V 1990 N. CALIFORNIABOULEVARD SUITE 202, WALNUTCREEK PLAZA WALNUTCREEK, CALIFORNIA94596 October 1, 1981 MEMORANDUM FOR:
B.
H. Faulkenberry, Chief, Reactor Construction Projects Branch FROM:
SUBJECT:
SALP Regional Evaluation Review Board - PVNGS 1, 2 and 3
NRC Regional Evaluation of Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2 and 3
The Regional Evaluation Review Board for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2 and 3 met on September 9,
1981 to perform an evaluation of project activities for the period of June 1980 through June 1981.
The review was conducted in accordance with NRC Draft Manual Chapter 0516.
Enclosed is a copy of the assessment report.
Section II is an overa~
evaluation of site management.
x
=
j rt r
> Licensee performance in the areas of quality assurance, safe y-re ated structures, corrective actions and reporting, and training displayed unusual competence.
The board concluded that improvements have been made in the weaknesses identified in the previous appraisal period.
It appears that the licensee can make further improvements in the areas of storage, handling and maintenance of equipment and the quality of vendor supplied equipment and materials.
The Board does not recommend any changes to the routine construction inspection program for this facility.
Regional Review Board Member s:
[.a! IIIpt T.
W.
B shop, C a rman, C
ef Pro ect Section 1,
/
J.
H. Eck ardt, Reactor Inspector agner eac or Inspector L. E.
Vor er rueggen, Sr.
es dent Inspector (Construction)
G.
Furore S
Res dent nspector
+Operations)
- errsgan, Pro ec
- anager, NRR
Enclosure:
SALP Evaluation Report for Appraisal Period 6/80 - 6/81
'h
'I I
4 ~
~
P 4
I I
I'PP l
4
~
~
I i
I l
4 h H P
I 4
I I
~
hl)J I
'l
>>P H
HII'h h I Mh h
H IP hfh
'f f"
-,, H, c
., ~
H '
I I*
",H t f)
~
I 4
il"hf H
'Ml' I'h I
It, I
II Ih,"
4 I
'HH PP P P
~
~
I I
I H
~
~
Il W
hc I
\\ 44 P
PH I ~
H MP H
~
~
G.
Overall Evaluation The stable and effective management organizations of the licensee and A/E/construction manager have achieved improvements in previously identified areas of weakness
- and, in general, good performance in current design and construction activities.
This performance is reflected in a low level of required NRC enforcement actions for the facility (four items of noncompliance in 1298 hours0.015 days <br />0.361 hours <br />0.00215 weeks <br />4.93889e-4 months <br /> of inspection).
Evaluation Criteria The various functional areas and the licensee's overall performance were assigned a Category 1,
2 or 3 rating based upon the following evaluation criter ia:
~CR.
d RRC 1
33 pp 1
Ld attention and involvement are aggressive and oriented toward nuclear safety; licensee resources are ample and effectively used such that a high level of performance with respect to operational safety or construction is being achieved.
Cate or 2.
NRC attention should be maintained at normal levels.
icensee management attention and involvement are evident and are concerned with nuclear safety; licensee resources are adequate and are reasonably effective such that satisfactory performance with respect to operational safety or construction is being achieved.
~33.
RC 11 1
1 3
1 d.
Licensee management attention or involvement is acceptable and considers nulcear safety; but weaknesses are evident; licensee resources appear to be strained or not effectively used such that minimally satisfactory performance with respect to operational safety or construction is being achieved.
/,
tl p
1 1
(
/
P C
1 I
II.
Licensee Performance Evaluation A.
B.
C.
~Paci lit :
Palo Verde 1/2/3 (PVNGS)
Licensee:
Arizona Public Service Company Unit Identification:
Units 1, 2 and 3
Docket No.
50-528 50-529 50-530 CP No./Date of Issuance Unit No.
CPPR-141, May 25,
-1976 CPPR-142, May 25, 1976 CPPR-143, May 25, 1976 D.
Reactor Information:
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 NSSS CE (System 80)
CE (System 80)
CE System 80)
MWT 3800 MWT 1307 MWe 3800 MWT 1307 MWe 3800 MWT 1307 MWe E.
F.
A raisal Period:
June 1, 1980 - June 30, 1981 A
raisal Com letion Date:
September 9,
1981 Review Board Members:
H.
T.
W. Bishop, Chairman, Reactor Projects Section 1,
IE:RV L. E. Yorderbrueggen, Senior Resident Inspector, IE:RY G. Fiorelli, Senior Resident Inspector, IE:RV J.
H. Eckhardt, Project Inspector, IE:RV W. J.
- Wagner, Reactor Inspector, IE:RV J.
D. Kerrigan, Project Manager, NRR Overall Licensee Mana ement Evaluation NRC examination of Licensee management performance was accomplished during a special Team Inspection conducted in January and February 1981 and in conjunction with our routine construction program inspections.
In general, Licensee management has been effective in assuring the facility is being designed and 'constructed in accordance with pertinent regulatory requirements.
t Licensee management has been responsive to NRC findings and areas of concern and has been effective in resolving these issues.
The NRC inspection staff has noted significant strength in the areas of quality assurance, safety-related structures, corrective
- actions, deficiency reporting, and personnel training.
It does appear that management can take further actions to improve activities related to storage,
- handling, and maintenance of equipment and the quality of vendor supplied equipment and materials.
4 III. Per formance Anal sis of Functional Areas A.
Oualit Assurance
~Anal sis n
I n
No items of noncompliance were identified in this functional area.
The licensee's and Construction Manager's quality assurance programs for construction were structured according to regulatory requirements.
The quality assurance and quality control organizations'taffing
- levels, personnel qualifications, and perforrItance also met regulatory requirements.
a The'egional
'inspectors noted good communication and a cooperative attitude'etween the Licensee gA and the Construction Manager' QA/gC groups'.
- Further, a high degree of management visibility and a'strorig gA/gC image was observed.
It was found that open "communications exist between the staff/workers and management; permitting problems to be identified early and expeditiously resolved.
n
)-
K
'2.
3.
Conclusion I
Performance in this area is rated as Category 1.
Board Comments The Board recommends no changes to the routine construction inspection program for this functional area.
B.
Substructures and Foundations,
- Concrete, Liner and Containment 1.
~Anal sis One item of noncompliance (Severity Level V) was issued in this functional area.
This item related to the failure to assure adequate form cleanliness prior to concrete placement.
Licensee corrective measures in the area appear effective and no further instances of this deficiency have been identified by the NRC.
The licensee's quality program identified significant problems in the area of omission of concrete reinforcing steel, concrete voiding, inadequate embedment of anchor bolts, and inadequate strength of pneumatically placed mortar.
I.
\\
K tl V
J C
I1 2.
The routine construction inspection program observations.
noted that the licensee also experienced problems in the installation of the Unit 2 containment dome liner and Unit 1 containment dome tendon sheathing, In each case the discrepant conditions were properly corrected by the Licensee.
Conclusion 3.
Performance in this area is rated as Category 2.
Board Comments The Board recoranends no change to the routine construction inspection program for this functional area.
It C.
Safet -Rel ated Structures includin wel din
~Anal sis One, item of noncompliance of minor safety significance (severity
'level",VI)';was-,identified in this functional area.
The noncompliance pertained to i/proper removal of temporary attachments from structural steel.'icensee corrective measures appear to have, been effectiVe and no further instances of this condition
':~".have. been identified;by the NRC.
~'. ',. *The licensee's quality assurance program has been effective
.in.assessing'th'eapplicability of problems detected at other
,faci 1-ities.,~,Fol'lowing identification of similar problems
-.,",,at the.'Pylo Verde facility the licensee took effective corrective
. actions".:
,':,'RC inspectonrs'b'servations during routine construction inspections"noted that the Licensee and Construction Manager make maximum use of experience gained on one unit to improve their construction performance, on subsequent units.
i 2.
Conclusion 3.
Performance in this area is rated Category 1.
Board Comments The Board recommends no change to the routine construction inspection program for this functional area.
I I r
I fl
'j ~lI k
L 5
J 4
'I J
f t I E
,l e i f
D.,
Pi 'in and Han ers includin Weldin i
1')
~"\\'1 "gl J
5 s
'i
'I EJ il
~Anal sis 10ne item of; noncompliance (Severity Level YI) was identified
. in this functional area involving the failure to apply welder identifications to hanger welds.
In addition, it was determined
,that ven'dor wetding inadequacies on hangers were not detected by.fiel'd engineers during installation and were not being picked up by,routine gC inspections.
':.X.'5".'The'-;licenseequality assurance program identified a large number'f problems with vendor supplied piping, valves,
-and support components,'s well as cold springing of pipe "during", field installations of'ipe supports.
Licensee corrective measur'es on some of these items are still in progress, those
'hich have been',completed were satisfactorily resolved.
I In gener'al, the'inspectors considered that the licensee had an effective prog'ram for pipe welding control.
2.
IP 3.
Conclusion Performance in this area is rated as Category 2.
Board Comments The Board recommends no change to the routine construction inspection program in this functional area.
E.
Safet -Related Com onents
- Vessels, Internals Im HVAC
~Anal sis One item of noncompliance (severity level V) was.identified in this functional area, This item related to the failure to properly maintain installed valve motors.
In addition the NRC Team inspection identified weaknesses in the storage, maintenance,
- handling, and inspection of components.
These items have not yet been fully resolved.
The licensee reported deficiencies in vendor supplied components involving potential motor shaft breakage, inadequate pump performance, and potential inoperability of fire dampers.
t.
tti
)t t
It t
r tt'
)
tl t
4
'I' E-I t
v
-t 4t
- ttt, t
t tt V
lt t
)t t'a a tt.
(t t
tt t
tt
)
tt I t
t
'The component storage problems discussed during the previous appraisal, involved improper covering of pipe openings and equipment and the handling of pipe spools and welding electrodes.
It was found that the licensee's corrective actions in these areas has been effective.
n
, 2.
'onclusion Whi,lenthe licensee has been effective in improving the specific ty'pe of 'storage and handling problems discussed during the previous appraisal period it appears that further actions
, ar'e warranted since other storage and handling problems
- 'continue to be identified.
Notwithstanding the above, the licensee's performance in this area is rated Category 2.'.,
Board Comments The Board recommends no changes to the routine construction inspection program in this functional area.
F.
Electrical E ui ment Tra and Wirin 2.
~Ana1 sis No items of noncompliance were identified in this functional area.
Licensee work activities in this area were found to be properly controlled.
It was noted that electrical separation details are not always adequately addressed in the installation documents.
This condition has been identified to the licensee and will be further monitored by the NRC inspection staff.
The licensee's quality program and reporting system identified eleven 50.55(e) construction deficiency reports in this functional ar ea.
The majority of these (9) related to defects in vendor supplied materials (see paragraph III.K).
Conclusion 3.
Performance in this area is rated Category 2.
Board Comments The Board recommends no change to the routine construction inspection program for this functional area.
1 1
i(
I
G.
Instrumentation Licensee activity in this functional area was minimal during the current appraisal period.
Licensee performance relating to instrumentation will be assessed during the next appraisal period.
H.
Fire Protection Licensee performance in this functional area was not examined during the current appraisal period.
This area will be examined during the next appraisal period.
I.
Preservice Ins ection Licensee activity in this functional area was minimal during the current appraisal period.
Licensee performance relating to preservice inspection will be assessed during the next appraisal period.
J.
Corrective Action and Deficienc Re ortin 1.
~Anal sis No items of noncompliance were identified in this functional area.
The licensee's responses and corrective actions to IE Bulletins and Circulars, items of noncompliance, and other NRC concerns has been timely, comprehensive, and effective.
An effective program is in place for reviewing items for 10 CFR 50.55(e) significance.
The licensee has submitted 39 50.55(e) items during the appraisal period.
2.
Conclusion Performance in this area is rated Category l.
3.
Board Comments The Board recommends no changes to the routine construction inspection program in this functional area.
K.
P'rocurement 1.
~Anal sis No items of ar'ea.
noncomp1 i ance,wet e identified in thi s functi onal 91 j
C
t, 1
I 1'.
H
)
s I'C
'J q,, t E'
i
. ~".
i' i
The,'licensee report'ed a large number of deficiencies in
'eygor supplied mnatepials and equipment during the current
,apapr'aisal jeriod..--(approximately 25 50,55(e) reports).
These" deficiencies included inadequate bolting materials, piping
- supports, pipe, and'lectrical/instrument components (see paragraphs III';C, D, E, and F),
The identification of these problems indicates that the licensee's quality program is effective in detecting equipment deficiencies.
- However,
. based upon the large number of equipment and material problems the 'licensee may need to assess the effectiveness of the quality controls currently applied to suppliers, as well as the adequacy of the surveillance program in this area.
2.
Conclus ion 3.
Not withstanding the condition noted above, overall performance in the area of procurement is rated Category 2.
Board Comments L.
The Board recommends no changes to the routine construction inspection program in this fuqctional area.
n Chan es 2.
~Ana1 sis r
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
Licensee activities in the area of design changes were found to be controlled in accordance with regulatory requirements.
The licensee's quality program'as identified some deficiencies in selected areas of original design (e.g., rebar design for main steam support structures and other areas, and fuel transfer housing tube design).
No deficiencies were identified'n the specific area of design
- changes, Conclusions 3
Performance in this area is rated Category 2.
Board Comments The Board recommends no changes to the routine constructi.on inspection program in this ar ea,
I
~,
~
~
t 1
P
4I ia The'licen'see reported a large number of deficiencies in
, I', 'vendor. supplied materials and equipment during the current
'-'appraisal period, (approximately 25 50.55(e) reports).
These
'defi'ci'enoies included inadequate bolting materials, piping
":""'-"supports, pipe, and electrical/instrument components (see para'graphs III.'C,- 0, E,
and F).
The identification of these
" ',,-.'t;oblems indicates that the licensee's quality program is effective,in detecting equipment deficiencies.
- However, based
'upon the large number of equipment and material problems
'the 'licensee may need to assess the effectiveness of the
~ quality controls currently applied to suppliers, as well
's the adequacy of the surveillance program in this area.
2.
Conclusion
/
Not withstanding the condition noted above, overall performance in the area of procurement is rated Category 2.
3.
Board CommeRCs L.
The Board recommends no changes to the routine construction inspection program in this functional area.
n Chan es 2.
~Anal sis No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
Licensee activities in the area of design changes were found to be controlled ih accordance with regulatory requirements.
The licensee's quality program has identified some deficiencies in selected areas of original design (e.g.,
rebar design for main steam support structures and other areas, and fuel transfer housing tube design).
No deficiencies were identified in the specific area of design changes.
Conclusions 3.
Performance in this area is rated Category 2.
Board Comments The Board recommends no changes to the routine construction inspection program in this area.
0 I
1 yf J'
J J
7 I 7 I
tJ I '.
't t J
(*
I I,
7't 77 II 1
I E..
>I It 7
10-M.
Traininc
, ~
(
l
'.a 1.
~Anal sis No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
The licensee's and Construction Manager's training programs and program effectiveness have been examined in conjunction with the inspection of other functional areas.
The inspectors have noted that all new craftsmen are indoctrinated and that an effective training program has been implemented for ski 1 led craftsmen (e.g.,'elders, electri ci ans) and gC inspectors.
(
It was,.further noted that specialized training is provided when -determi'ned necessary by management.
2.
Conclusion
'I Pe'rformance in this area is rated Category 1.
I 3.
"BoardComments t
gj
The', Board, recommendsi.nol changes to the routine construction
.;ipspectiop"programn for,'this functional area.
~ w'r r' s
~ ot a
r n
rn r
a
~
~
J
, Ir l
(
1 t
I I
C e
f L
IY.
Su ortin Data and Summaries A.
Noncom liance Data Four items of noncompliance were identified during the appraisal per iod.
These items are identified below:
Unit 1 - Severity Level V, Criterion V, Installed valve motors not properly maintained.
Unit 2 - Severity Level VI, Criterion V, Improper removal of temporary attachments from structural steel.
Unit 2 - Sever ity Level YI, Criterion Y, No welder identification on weld.
Unit 3 - Severity Level V, Criterion V, Inadequate cleanliness prior to concrete placement.
See Attachment IV-1 and IV-2 for additional noncompliance data.
B.
Re orts Data Construction Deficienc Re orts During the reporting period (June 1,
1980 through June 30, 1981) the licensee verbally reported 48 construction deficiencies or potential deficiencies to Region V per the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55(e).
Subsequent to the initial verbal notification, the licensee determined that nine of these items were in,fact not reportable.
All of the required written reports were submitted within the specified time limit of 30 days.
See attachment IY-3 for a listing of the reports.
i.
~Li i ii ii The following major construction activities were performed during the appraisal period:
Unit 1 Completion of concrete on containment dome.
Completion of spray pond.
Commencement of containment postensioning system installation.
Continuing electrical cable installation.
Continuing piping installation.
Safety related tank construction.
Commencement of systems turnover to startup.
Unit 2 Reactor vessel installation.
Steam generator installation.
Completion of Containment dome liner.
Continuing piping installation.
Unit 3 Completion of containment liner up to spring line.
Commencement of containment exterior concrete.
Continuing piping and component installation in auxiliary building.
D.
Ins ection Activities During the appraisal
- period, a total of 19 inspections were performed.
The number and type of inspections are summarized below:
T e of Ins ection Number of Ins ections Performed Ins ection Hours Resident Regional Team 12 6
1 T9 621 321 356 1798 Nine different inspectors were involved in this inspection effort.
The team inspection was conducted by five inspectors during the period January 26 - February 5, 1981.
No items of noncompliance were identified during this inspection.
E.
Investi ation and Alle ations Review No allegations were received during the appraisal period.
F.
Escalated Enforcement Actions No escalated enforcement actions were taken during the appraisal period.
G.
Mana ement Conferences The only management conference held during the appraisal period was the meeting on June 10, 1980 to discuss results of the licensee's performance evaluation by Region V for the period May 1979 through May 1980.
The details of this meeting are documented in report number 50-528/80-11.
ATTACHMENT ZV-l:
Noncom liance Data, A.
NUMBER AND NATURE OF NONCOMPLIANCE ITEMS - CONSTRUCTION REACTORS (UNIT 1)
Functional Area Inspection Manhours Noncompliances
~Ei L
I II III IV V
VI Vio Inf Def Dev
- 1. equality assurance
- 2. Substructure foundations, concrete 8
liner (containment others) 81 70
- 3. Safety-related structures 24 (including welding)
- 4. Piping
& changers 102 reactor coolant
& others-(including welding)
- 5. Safety-related components 68 (vessel, internals HVAC)
- 6. Electrical equipment, 111 tray
& wire
- 7. Instrumentation
- 8. Fire protection
- 9. Preservice inspection
- 10. Corrective actions reporting ll. Procurement 12.
Design changes
- 13. Training*
0 0
32 10 0
- Inspected in conjunction with other functional areas.
s.
NUMBER AND NATURE OF NONCOMPLIANCE ITEMS - CONSTRUCTION REACTORS (UllIT 2)
Functional Area Inspection Manhours Noncompliances
~Si L
I II III IV V
VI Vio Inf Def Dev
- 1. Quality assurance
- 2. Substructure.8 foundations, concrete 8
liner (containment others) 75 44
- 3. Safety-related structures32 (including welding)
- 4. Piping &,hangers.
reactor coolant others - (including welding)
- 5. Safety-related components (vessel, internals
& HVAC)
- 6. Electrical equipment, tray 8 wire
- 7. Instrumentation
- 8. Fire protection
- 9. Preservice inspection
- 10. Corrective actions 8
reporting 11.
Procurement 123 100 0
0
~ -0 0
23 12.
Design changes
- 13. Training*
10, 0
- Inspected in conjunction with other functional areas.
~ ~ ~'~
c-NUHBER'ND NATURE OF NONCOMPLIANCE ITEMS -
CONSTRUCTION REACTORS (UNIT 3)
Functional Area Inspection Manhours Noncompliances L
I II III IV V
VI Vio Inf Def Dev
- l. equality assurance
- 2. Substructure foundati'ons, concrete liner (containment others) 76 55 X. Safety-related structures 36 (including welding)
- 4. Piping.&. hangers-=,
41-reactor coolant
& others-(including welding)
- 5. Safety-related components (vessel, internals
& HVAC)
- 6. Electrical equipment, tray
& wire
- 7. Instrumentation 21 0
- 8. Fire protection
- 9. Preservice inspection
- 10. Corrective actions reporting 11.
Procurement 0
,0 12.
Design changes
- 13. Training*
10
- Inspected in conjunction with other functional areas.
~
~
ATTACHMENT IV-2:
Enforcement Histor PVNGS Number of Items Inspection Hours per SALP Period Ins ection Hours of Nonco liance Item of'Noncom jiance 5/79 - 5/80 6/80 - 6/81 1064 1298 11 96.7 324.5
ATTACHMENT IV-3:
50.55 e
Re ortin Verbal Notification Written Report Descri tion 06/04/80 Interim 07/03/80 Final 09/15/80 Operability failure of vertical fire dampers.
06/04/80 06/04/80 06/05/80 06/12/80 06/20/80 06/20/80 07/01/80 Final 07/03/80 Final Final Final Final Final 07/03/80 07/08/80 07/09/80 07/21/80 07/21/80 Interim 07/28/80 Final ll/06/80 Namco Controls series EA180 limit switches.
Defective pressure switch in the chlorine detector.
Dowel rebar omission during concrete placement (Unit 3 auxiliary building).
Closure of Comsip containment gas analysis sys.
pump valve.
Inadequate embedment of anchor bolts for Unit 1 8
2 seal tables.
Inadequate design of rebar in walls of main stm. support structure for Unit l.
Rebar shown in drawings may not accur ately reflect actual design in some cases.
07/23/80 Final 07/29/80 Sorg-Warner valves with stem extensions which could loosen after a few cycles.
08/22/80 08/28/80 Final 09/24/80 Interim 09/24/80 Interim 12/Ol/80 Final 03/02/80 Dowel rebar omission from Unit 2 control building wall pour.
Loose bushings on Corner E Lada sway struts.
4
~
~
~
~
~ ~ e Verbal Notification Written Report Oate
~Te Date Descri tion 08/28/80 Interim Interim Final 09/26/80 12/12/80 04/03/81 Excessive shear stresses in Units 1
& 2 concrete slabs supporting SI tanks 1B, 2A & 2B.
09/04/80 09/16/80 Interim Interim.
Final Interim Interim 10/07/80 12/16/80 12/30/80 10/15/80 11/06/80 Inadequate concrete strength achieved with pneumatically placed mortar repair.
Weld deficiencies in main control panels.
Interim 01/21/81 Inter im
. 03/10/81 09/16/80 F'inal 10/23/80 temperature detection controllers used on CTI-Nuclear air handling and
. filtration equipment.
10/01/80 10/01/80 10/23/80 Final Final
.10/31/80 10/31/80 Borg-Warner motor operated gate valve failure to close under operating conditions.'otential motor shaft breakage in hydrogen monitors.
Final 11/05/80 Mechanical interlock device. on the 4@125 Final(Rev) 2/06/81 V DC battery charger cabinet supplied by Power Conversion Products.
11/25/80 11/20/80 12/11/80 12/11/80 12/11/80 Interim Interim Interim A
\\
Interim Interim Final Interim Final Final 12/24/80 02/24/81 04/10/81 Concrete void in Unit 2 contro1 building s uillp.
01/12/81 01/12/81 03/16/81 01/12/81 Cl as s 1E conductors within
= 6" of nonclass 1E conductors.
Cable tray supports not meeting drawing requirements.
Pipe spools pulled to facilitate installation of pipe supports may overstress welds.
12/01/80 Loose bushings in ITT Grinnell sway 02/26/81 struts.
II Verbal Notification Written Report Da te
~Te Date Descri tion 12/30/80 Inte'rim Final 01/12/81 03/18/81 Containment fuel transfer housing tube design.
01/09/81 01/08/81 01/09/81 Interim Final Interim Final 02/05/81 02/04/81
'2/06/81 04/30/81 Texas bolt material not meeting ASHE Sec. III.
Additional reinforcing bar required by drawing not included in containment placement.
ASME Sec.
XI UT preservice exam revealing indications in Pullman Power elbows.
01/27/81 -.Interim --02/26/81 Indicati on -revealed -in-site RT of-piping-Final
'4/20/81 spools which were previously accepted.
03/25/81 03/20/81 05/12/81 05/21/81 05/21/81 05/21/81 05/29/81 06/05/81 Final Interim Interim
'4/15/81 04/16/81
'6/09/81 Cracked turnbuckle assembly supplied for suspension system for control room lighting.
Swivel bearings on RCP horizontal support columns cannot be rotated.
ITT Grinnell snubbers do not have hardened washers as required by Subsectio NF of ASME Code.
Broken fiber contact base on armature of B phase overcurrent relay in 4. 16 KV swgr Mating forces of 125 V
DC control power fuse blocks decreases after several insertions and removal of pull-out fuse blocks.
- 4. 16 KV GE switchgear contains internal wiring which violates Class 1E/Non-class 1E separation requirements.
Marathon Steel supplied pipe restraint bolts have cracked and separated during normal handling.
Turbine driven pump does not provide aux.
FM flow within 10 sec. with off-site pwr.
and a fai lure of the motor'driven pump as required by the FSAR.
Verbal Notification Written Report Date
~Te Date Descri tion 12/30/80 Interim Final 01/12/81 03/18/81 Containment fuel transfer housing tube design.
01/09/81 Interim 02/05/81 Texas bolt material not meeting ASME Sec. III.
01/08/81 'inal 02/04/81 Additional reinforcing bar required by drawing not included in containment placement.
01/09/81 Interim Final
'2/06/81 04/30/81 ASME Sec.
XI UT preservice exam revealing indications in Pullman Power elbows.
01/27/81 -,I'nterim--02/26/81 Indication-revealed -in-site RT of-piping-Final
'4/20/81 spools which were previous'ly accepted.
03/25/81 03/20/81 05/12/81 05/21/81 05/21/81 Final Interim Interim
'4/15/81 04/16/81
. 06/09/81 Cracked turnbuckle assembly supplied for suspension system for control room lighting.
Swivel bearings on RCP horizontal support columns cannot be rotated.
ITT Grinnell snubbers do not have hardened washers as required by Subsectio NF of-ASME Code.
Broken fiber contact base on armature of B phase overcurrent relay in 4. 16 KV swgr Mating forces of 125 V
DC control power fuse blocks decreases after several insertions and removal of pull-out fuse blocks.
05/21/81 05/29/81 06/05/81
- 4. 16 KV GE switchgear contains internal wiring which violates Class lE/Non-class 1E separation requirements.
Marathon Steel supplied pipe restraint bolts have cracked and separated during normal handling.
Turbine driven pump does not provide aux.
FW flow within 10 sec. with off-site pwr.
and a failure of the motor'driven pump as required by the FSAR.
NRR Per formance Evaluation Facility:
Palo Verde, Units 1, 2. and 3
Appr a isal Period:
July 1, 1980 to June, 1901 project Manager:
Q. Ken'iqaa 1.
Performance Elements a.
The appl1cant's responses are generally of average or sl)ghtly below average quality.
Thei~ responses are brief and
, in several instances, do not address details that have been specifically requested.
b.
There 1s an average amount of effort required to obtain an acceptable response or submittal from the applicant.
This conclusion is based upon the following evaluations:
1.
Timeliness - The applicant normally meets scheduled deadlines.
2.
Effort - An average amount of effort 1s requ1r'ed to obtain applicant responses.
3.
Responsiveness to staff requests
-The applicant 1s reasonably responsive to staff requests after assuring themselves that, the information requested is needed by the staff in order to ~1¹ the SER.
4.
-Anticipates or reacts to HRC needs The applicant is above average 1n anticipat1ng NRC requirements and is very aggressive in pursuing the development of ~ HRC requirements.
c.
Morking knowledge of regulations, guides.
standards and generic issues.
The app11cant 1s qu1te competent in the above area.
d.
Technical Competence The app1icant 1s average in this area.
The A/E for the project provides most of the engineering evaluations.
e.
Conduct of meetings with NRR The applicant is very responsive to agreeing to scheduled meeting dates and assuring that the appropriate techn1cal personnel i.e., consultants or HSSS vendor are present at meetings-
'4 )
Ic
Long-Standing open items The only long-standing open'item is in the area of control room fire protection criteria.
The applicant is currently preparing for n
~ting to discuss specific design problems.
The delay in reso1ution of this item was due to the applicant's expectation that the Appendix R
requirements would be modified for the control room area.
g.
Organization and Management Capabilities Upper management is very involved in the construction and licensing activities.
tiRC is schedu'led to meet with the applicant the week of August 3, 1981 to discuss this area.
N.
Results of operator licensing examinations during the appraisa1 period.
There has been no operator licensing examinations to date.
Performance of selected issues (as selected by the Project Manager)
The applicant has an active role in the review of the CESSAR standard plant and is very aggressive in assuring that the CESSAR interfaces are met.
P..
Observed Trends in Performance The applicant has p'laced an increased emphnsis on the operations organization.
3.
Notab1e Stren ths and Weaknesses a.
Strengths The major strengths of the applicant are the upper management involve-ment in the project nnd the anticipatory and innovative licensing personnel.
b.
Weaknesses T& applicant does not yet appear to have an appreciation for the amount of detailed information that, the staff requires in order to ccanolete.its evaluation.
,h,'lt
<<I
$Pj
~,~
<<<<I bP g+QQ