ML17299B238
| ML17299B238 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 05/08/1986 |
| From: | Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Kirsch D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8605150631 | |
| Download: ML17299B238 (4) | |
Text
May 8, 1986 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Dennis Kirsch, Director Division of Reactor Safety and Projects, Region V
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Frank J. Miraglia, Director Division of PWR Licensing-B, NRR PALO VERDE POST TRIP REVIEWS We have performed a review of the Palo Verde Post Trip Review Procedure
'79AC-9ZZ08) along with two recent post trip review reports
( 1-85-009 and 1-85-010).
This evaluation was initiated by our perceived inability to obtain detailed information during the assessment of the licensee's 50.72 reports.
Our evaluation has indicated an apparent need for improvement in procedure clarification and in post trip review consistency as shown by the attached comments.
We are forwarding these comments for your review, action and subsequent resolution with the licensee.
'Ori81nal Sigma by z
Frank J. Miraglia, Director Division of PWR Licensing-B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated
Contact:
E. A. Licitra X28599 Distribution:
Docket File ~
NRC PDR Local PDR PBD7 Reading
" EALicitra JLee WRegan
- PBD7, D:
EALicitra
'G ton yl I I66 OI66 860515063i Bb0508 PDR ADOCK 05000528
~
/86 De FJMiragl ia g (/86
Enclosure PVNGS REPORT 1-85-010, dated December 20, 1985 l.
Appendix A, Part IV D was revised January 18, 1986, to include three restart recommendations and Vice President, Nuclear Production approval (p.
20 of 25 was replaced).
However, the Part IV D used for this event (signed/dated December 21, 1985) was the same as the revised page.
- Thus, it appears that an unauthorized form was in use prior to its authorization on January 18, 1986.
2.
Procedure 79AC-9ZZ08, Revision 1, dated January 18,
- 1986, added the above approval requirement to the appendix, but did not incorporate the Vice President's responsibilities or add approval requirements within the procedure.
3.
4.
The Appendix A, Page 10 of 10, Part E) statement, "This section will be used only when...(2) subsequent reviews of the event are required,"
should reference the Procedure 79AC-9Z208, Section 5.4. 1.4 requirements.
Section 5.4. 1.4 states, in part, "PRB review is required whenever there has been anomalous performance of safety-related equipment...."
Reference to this section would ensure that restart does not occur without complying with procedural requirements.
The following operator statements did not'iprovide recommendations to prevent or reduce the chances of this type of event recurring as required by Procedure 79AC-9ZZ08, Section 5.3. 1. l.f):
'hift Supervisor Assi s tant Shift Super'vi sor
'O III Primary Operator 5.
Procedure 79AC-9ZZ08, Section 5.6.3 references an "Appendix B" which should be "Appendix D."
6.
Concerning Appendix A, Part IV D, "Restart Recommendation," it is unclear what the words, "All problems and/or anomalous plant behavior identified in Section A through E of this part..."
means since Appendix A, Part IV contains Sections A) through E).
Sections D) and E) address restart and required reviews and not anomalous conditions.
7.
Page Ba lists concerns to be resolved prior to restart.
From the documentation provided in the PTRR (EER 85-SF-038), it is unclear as to whether or not the initial refill demand position voltage for the downcomer valves and running speed for the main feedwater pumps were reset prior to restart.
'W7 l
f
PVNGS Re ort 1-85-009, dated December 16, 1985 8.
Same comment as bl above.
9.
The Post Trip Review Report Log Sheet indicated the completed PTRR had not been transmitted to the Training Department, Nuclear Safety Group, and Independent Safety Engineering Group as required by Procedure 79AC-9ZZ08, Section 5.7.2.
10.
Same comment as P4 above for:
. Assistant Shift Supervisor
'hift Supervisor Assistant Control Room Operator
'O III
'eactor Operator.
'hift Technical Advisor 11.
The post trip review report indicates a possible design inadequacy in the sequencer which caused multiple electrical malfunctions after it was overheated.
The resolution in Attachment+1 was that the overheated sequencer was replaced by a new one tested in Unit 2. It appears that the new sequencer is of the same design ahd may have the same design problem.
The question of design adequacy was not addressed in the trip review report.
12.
The post trip review also indicated difficulties in feedwater control at low power level.
There were no discussions regarding the adequacy of existing operating procedures with respect to feedwater supplies during low feed flow conditions in this report.