ML17299B019
| ML17299B019 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 01/30/1986 |
| From: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Van Brunt E ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17299B020 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8602190063 | |
| Download: ML17299B019 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000528/1985043
Text
j
8602i90063 860130
ADaCK 05000528
8
)
4
JAN 30 1986
Docket Nos. 50-528
50-529
Arizona Nuclear Power Pxoject
P. 0. Box 52034
Phoenix, Arizona
85072-2034
Attention:
Mr. E. E. Van Brunt,Sr.,
Executive Vice President
Gentlemen:
~I
Subject:
NRC Inspection of Palo Verde'nits
1 and 2..
1
This refers to the inspection
conducted by Messrs.
R.
Zitmnerman,
C. Bosted
and
G.
Fiorelli, of'his office on November '13 th'rough
December
27,
1985 of activitiesI authorized
by NRC License
No. NPF-41
and NPF-46 and to the discussion of our findings, held with yourself and
other members of your staff at the conclusi'on of the inspection.
Areas
examined during this inspection
are", described in the enclosed
inspection report.
Within these 'areas,
the inspection consisted of
selective
examinations of procedures
and representative
records, inter-
views with personnel,
and observations
by the inspectors.
Based
on the results of this inspection, it app'ears
that certain of your
activities were not conducted in full compliance with NRC requirements,
as set forth in the Notice of Violation, enclosed
herewith as Appendix A.
Your response
to this Notice is to be submitted in accordance
with the
provisions of 10 CFR 2.201
as stated in Appendix A, Notice of Violation.
In addition to the above violations,
we are concerned with the level of
thoroughness
applied to your post trip review process.
Our evaluation of
your recent review following a reactor trip on December
16, 1985,
indicates that increased effort is warranted in ensuring that all off-
normal conditions identified are evaluated with regard to safety
significance,
and appropriate,
thorough corrective action is implemented.
Your decision not to provide at least
a verbal briefing to the operating
shifts prior to restarting Unit 1 is of concern in light of 1) the
relative difficultywhich was experienced
reestablishing
normal and
emergency
power to a vital bus following the sequencer
malfunction,
and
2) the contribution of operator error to the reactor trip.
Further,
we
note that your post trip review report only addressed
the reactor trip
and did not address
your actions taken regarding the more significant
transient involving the sequencer.
We believe your post trip review
process
should have more formally evaluated
the sequencer
malfunction
which occurred
and clearly documented all immediate corrective actions
taken, prior to restart.
We believe that the post trip review process
4
'I
I
4
I
I
ll
4
4
14
I
I
ll
Ij
I'~4
~ i
4 +I.
P4-
~4
I
.4
I
': ,J
J
f C*
"
ff+iy
if lf
I
I
I
I
I'
4
I
,,lh"'
l
<4W '4
I
44,
i
4
0
4
I
'l
4
4
4
I
O'I
ll
-2-
JAN 3 0 1986
only in its primary capacity of identifying existing or potential safety
concerns,
but also
as
an effective tool in minimizing challenges
to the
plant protection and safeguards
systems;
training personnel;
identifying
areas for improvement in plant design
and reliability; and revising
implementing controls
and procedures,
as necessary.
We recommend
therefore that management
examine the post trip review process in an
effort to enhance its effectiveness.
Our concern regarding
the post trip review process
should be viewed
broadly with respect
to ensuring self critical appraisals
are performed
in areas necessitating
improvements.
The early phase of plant operation
is a critical period which requires
management's
attention to ensure that
the proper attitude toward carrying out plant activities is developed
and
implemented.
In accordance
with 10 CFR 2.790(a),
a copy of this letter and the en-
closure will be placed in the
NRC Public Document
Room.
The response
directed by this letter and the accompanying
Notice are not
subject to the clearance
procedure of the Office of Management
and Budget
as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,
PL 96-511.
Should you have any questions
concerning this inspection,
we will be
pleased to'iscuss
them with you.
f
gkk pjg)
Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
A. Appendix A Notice of Violations
B. Inspection Report Nos.
50-528/85-43
50-529/85-44
n
cc w/enclosures.
J.
R.
Bynum,
PVNGS Plant Manager
S.
R. Frost, Supervisor,
Nuclear Operations Licensing,
Sta., 40804
T.
D. Shriver, Manager, Quality Systems
6 Engineering
W.
E. Ide, Manager,
Corporate
QA/QC
C.
N. Russo,
Manager,
QA Audits/Monitoring
Ms. J. Morrison
Ms. L. Bernabei,
GAP
Arthur C. Gehr,
Esq.
D. Railsback,
Arizona Corporation Commission
bcc w/enclosures:
Control Desk/RIDS
cc w/o enclosure
V/dot
ERMAN
)g /86
1/ g /86
Jot%>D M
~( g (+Gg'2
B:
LFMB
Cf~M~
R
~xRRlt P~
8>>g5K
S<~5%M
/86
1/
/86
//p}(/g
/g/$ jp(
yg pg
F
M
1) g/86
1/Jg
Pa/~ g~
//~( fg 6
Wars>~
i/p gjyp
J. Martin; B. Faulkenberry;
G. Cook; RSB/Document
Project Inspector;
Resident
Inspector
'F il
I
~ +
p
tl
'}
~
~
'I '
FI/
Xf>>F f
(
I.
4
4
~ Fh
F
,I
,4
F
p
~ ql
"I
F
I
t
4
yen
4( ~
'tf "
.I
f(,
II >>f>>
eh/l
'(}(
4 f} 7
((
}4
'lie I
() ~,.I
>>
'I 4
F
If q
F
If(,}I
4
I
4
)g
}
4,
n}>>(s
IF I'Ff
'j)>>";f')(
F(Fl
ff rn
en ~ /"
lh'
4
qf}
en
ql 1 ~
4
f>>,
4 F}/I
I f
~-ffqte
I
F
ff
"'
lt
44
F
fe,
}
-
~
4
- I
~ } tt
1 'J 4 } Ii'- ) }
'"f(4 q;; I't i., / h}n II~ n, I, f Iff l fpt. l>> (FFF Fq} }rr( ht f 4 'I I'>> I I ~ & Fth af'( 'f 4 I I a 4 ~ } ~ r I,'4 4 'I '44 I f f}ft 'ht>>>>'>> q } "~ f I ~,I, 4 I tt '"lh f 'ZV444 - ~ f Y( tq, e((n 4 f 4} IF 4 '}I.g C PF ~ )le } I l ~ 4 })4 I . I 4 >>I 4 4 } * }}