ML17299A950
| ML17299A950 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 01/13/1986 |
| From: | Licitra E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8601210638 | |
| Download: ML17299A950 (17) | |
Text
In light of the, above history, an NRC team was sent to the Palo Verde site
'ollowing the October 7, 1985, event to obtain a better understanding of what was occurring at Palo Verde Unit l.
,Site Visit Summar An entrance meeting was held with the licensee upon arrival at the site on October 9, 1985.
The licensee was informed of the purpose of the visit and was provided a copy of the general agenda (see Enclosure
- 3) that the NRC team proposed to follow during its visit.
The licensee agreed to provide the support needed to complete the items on the agenda.
For the remainder of October 9, 1985 and all of the next day, the NRC team spoke with various people within the APS organization concerning the three recent events (9/12/85, 10/02/85 and 10/07/85).
The people included the plant manager, Unit 1 operations superintendent, senior reactor operators, shift technical
- advisors, and representatives from design groups and licensing groups.
The NRC team was provided with copies of post-trip review reports for the events, as well as design drawings of the auxiliary pressurizer spray system and multiplexer system, including the interfacing systems.
The team members also went into the plant to look at the hardware involved in the three events.
On October 11,
- 1985, an exit meeting was held with the licensee in the Phoenix offices of APS to discuss the team's findings.
The team stated that concerns with the design of the auxiliary pressurizer spray system had been previously discussed with APS, are the subject of a 50.54(f) letter, and would not be repeated at the exit meeting.
The team stated that its evaluation of the pre-and post-trip review process for the three events did not identify any major problems.
However, the team noted that some improvements could be made with the pre-and post-trip review process and specific comments were provided.
The comments are discussed in.
In conclusion, the team emphasized that in light of Palo Verde Unit 1 being a first of a kind plant and the licensee's first operating nuclear plant, the licensee should proceed cautiously and deliberately with the remainder of the power ascension test program.
~9i"<t'igHCQ gy; E A. Uciig 860i2i0638 860ii3 PDR ADOCK OSOOOS28 9
PDR E. A. Licitra, Project Manager PWR Project Directorate No.
7 Division of PWR Licensing-B
Enclosures:
(1)'ttendees for Entrance Meeting - 10/9/85 2)
Attendees'or Exit Meeting - 10/11/85 3)
General Agenda for Team Visit 4
Summary of Team Findings cc:
See ext page PD7 Fd EALfcPt
/es hton I/I/86 1//</86
/I p
In liqht of the above history, an NRC team was sent to the Palo Verde site following the October 7, 1985, event to obtain a better understanding of what was occurring at Palo Verde Unit l.
Site Visit Summar An entrance meeting was held with the licensee upon arrival at the site on October 9, 1985.
The licensee was informed of the purpose of the visit and was 'provided a copy of the general agenda (see Enclosure
- 3) that the NRC team proposed to follow during its visit.
The licensee agreed to provide the support needed to complete the items on the agenda.
For the remainder of October 9, 1985 and all of the next day, the NRC team spoke with various people within the APS orqanization concerning the three recent events,(9/12/85, 10/02/85 and 10/07/85).
The peonle included the plant manager, Unit 1 operations superintendent, senior reactnr operators, shift technical
- advisors, and representatives from design qrouos and licensing groups.
The NRC team was provided with copies of post-trip review reports for the events, as well as design drawings of the auxiliary or essurizer spray system and multiplexer system, including the interfacinq systems.
The team members also went into, the plant to look at the har dware involved in the three events.
On October 11, 1985, an exit meetinq was held with the licensee in the Phoenix offices of APS to discuss the team's findings.
The team stated that concerns with the design nf the auxiliary pressurizer spray system had been previously discussed with APS, are the subject of a 50.54(f) letter, and would not be repeated at the exit meeting.
The team stated that its evaluation of the pre-and post-trip review process for the three events did not identify any ma,ior problems.
However, the team noted that some improvements could be made with the pre-and post-trip review process and specific comments were provided.
The comments are discussed in
'nclosure 4.
In conclusion, the team emphasized that in light of Palo Verde Unit 1 beinq a first of a kind plant and the licensee's first operatinq nuclear plant, the licensee should proceed cautiously and deliberatelv with the remainder of the power ascension test prnqram.
E. A. Licitra, Proiect.Manager PWR Project Directorate No.
7 Division of PNR Licensina-8
Enclosures:
( 1)
Attendees for Entrance Meetinq - 10/9/85 (2)
Attendees for Exit Meetinq - 10/ll/85 (3)
(general Aqenda for Team Visit (4)
Summary of Team Findings cc:
See next paqe
Mr. E.
E.
Van Brunt, Jr.
,Arizona Nuclear Power Pro,iect Palo Verde CC:
Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
Snell 5 Wilmer 3100 Valley Center
- Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Mr. James M. Flenner, Chief Counsel Arizona Corporation Commission 1200 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Charles R. Kocher, Esq. Assistant Council James A. Boeletto, Esq.
Southern California Edison Company P. 0.
Box 800
- Rosemead, California 91770 Mr. Mark Ginsberq Enerqy Director Office of Economic Planninq and Development 1700 West Washington - 5th Floor
- Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Mr. Wayne Shirley Assistant Attorney General Bataan Memorial Building Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503 Mr. Roy Zimmerman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. 0.
Box 239 Arlington, Arizona 85322 Ms. Patricia Lee Hourihan 6413 S. 26th Street Phoenix, Arizona 85040 Regional Administrator, Region V
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1450 Maria Lane Suite 210 Walnut Creek, Cali fornia 94596 Kenneth Berlin, Esq.
Winston 8 Strawn Suite 500 2550 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 Ms. Lynne Bernabei Government Accountability Project of the Institute for Policy Studies 1901 Que Street, NW Washington, DC 20009 Ms. Jill Morrison 522 E. Colgate Tempi, Arizona 85238 Mr. Charles B. Brinkman, Manager Washinqton Nuclear Operations Combustion Engineering, Inc.
7910 Woodmont Avenue Suite 1310
- Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Mr. Ron Rayner P. 0.
Box 1509
- Goodyear, AZ 85338
K II
ENCLOSURE I PALO VERDE UNIT I ENTRANCE EETING ATTENDEES 1
OCTOBER 9, 1985 Attendees D.
B. Karner T. F. Juan E.
C. Sterling I. Ahmed M. Chiramal E. A. Licitra L. B. Marsh G. Lani k M. Barnoski S.
Shepherd Bill quinn R.
M. Butler Joe Bynum Mike Jones John Allen Roy Zimmerman Affiliation ANPP ANPP ANPP NRC/NRR NRC NRC/DL/L83 NRC/DSI/RSB NRC/IE BPC Mqr. Liceninq, ANPP Director Tech. Serv.,
ANPP PVNGS Plant Manaaer ANPP ANPP NRC
l I
Ij 1
I f
I
'H I
ENCI OSURE 2
PALO VERDE UNIT 1
EXIT MEETING ATTFNDFES OCTOBER 11, 1985 Attendees Manny Licitra Joe Bynum Dennis Keith Ike Zerinque R.
M. Butler Jerry G.
Haynes Terry F. Juan Bill quinn D. B. Karner E.
E.
Van Brunt, Jr.
A. C. Gehr G. Lanik M. Chiramal I. Ahmed L. B. Marsh R.
P.
Zimmerman Affiliation NRC/DL/LB3 ANPP/PVNGS Plant Mgr.
Bechtel, Asst. Project Enqineer ANPP/Tech Support Mgr.
PVNGS ANPP/Dir. Tech.
Serv.
VP Nuclear Production ANPP ANPP Licensing Supervisor ANPP Licensing Manaqer ANPP Asst. Vice President ANPP Executive Vice President Snell 5 Wilner NRC/IE NRC/AEOD NRC/NRR/PSB NRC/NRR/RSB NRC
\\ t~
II
ENCLOSURF.
3 GFNFRAL AGENDA FOR NRC TEAM VISIT PALO VERDE UNIT 1 Pre-test evaluation process vendor evaluation utility operating staff procedural cautions on potential malfunctions Post-trip (post-event) review process
- how is it performed
- who reviews
- who has authority for restart (provide copies of latest post-trip reviews)
Design drawings of the systems
- auxiliary spray system and interfacing systems
- multiplier and interfacing systems Look at hardware in plant Talk to operations personnel involved in the events (SS, STA)
Detailed discussions on recent events
- September 12 event
- October 3 event
- October 7 event
y jl L
t
)I I
W
ENCLOSURE 4
SUMMARY
OF NRC TEAM FINDINGS PAI 0 VERDE UNIT I Pre-Test Evaluation It appears that the loss-of-load pre-test evaluation for the 9/12/85 test did not consider that a reactor trip and loss of offsite power could occur.
- Hence, the operators were not briefed on this potential prior to conducting the test.
Post-Trip Evaluation The documented review of the 9/12/85 event did not focus on the fact that natural circulation had taken place.
Since this was the first time that the plant had been in that mode, the report should have included an evaluation of its performance.
Also, the report did not focus on what was the safety significance of getting natural circulation and of losing the availability of the auxiliary spray system for the pressurizer.
The documented review of the 10/3/85 event, as well as follow-up discussions with ANPP, did not establish that ANPP had a clear understanding of the course of events and the resulting parameter traces (e.g.,
when auxiliary spray was used, when the reactor coolant pumps were restarted, when safety valves lifted, when steam generator level was restored and when ADVs were used).
To the extent that this information could be evaluated, it should have been included in the post-trip review report.
Prior to the 9/12/85 event, the STA was responsible for preparing the initial draft of the post-trip review report.
Preparation of the initial draft is now performed by several Oeople having different backgrounds.
The role of this group should include an evaluation of the broad aspects of an event includinq its safety siqnificance.
~Trainin There appeared to be some weakness in operator traininq, since, durinq the 10/03/85 event, there was a lack of understanding of when the reactor coolant pumps could be restarted following lockout of the 86 relay, and of the significance of a too rapid unloading of the generator (which resulted in a diesel trip).
Maintenance and checkout The 10/07/85 event took place while trouble shootina'he 10/03/85 loss-of-offsite power event involving the multiplexer.
White trouble shootinq was going on, maintenance work was alsn being performed on one of the breakers.
Doinq both at the same time appears to have been an imprudent action.
V L*
I Ih
]i
The 10/07/85 event also resulted in a total loss of offsite power for Palo Verde Unit 1 as was experienced on 10/03/85.
The total loss nf offsite power may have been avoided on 10/07/85 if the electrical system was aliqned to avoid such an occurrence (e.g.,
use nf the auxiliary transformer).
- Hence, there should have been better planninq before trouble shontinq and checkinq out the multiplexer.
li I
/
MEETING
SUMMARY
DISTRIBUTION
~Docket No(s-)'
50-528 NRC PDR Local PDR PBD-7 Reading JPartlow
'WKnighton BGrimes ACRS (10)
EJordan
- Attorney, OELD GWKnighton Pro,iect Manager E. A. Licitra NRC PARTICIPANTS Ahmed M. Chiramal E. A. Licitra L. B. Marsh G. Lani k R.
Zimmerman bcc:
Applicant Im Service List
)
a,e.
h I