ML20137A569
| ML20137A569 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 06/14/1985 |
| From: | Upton J Battelle Memorial Institute, PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATION |
| To: | Crews J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137A500 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8508210427 | |
| Download: ML20137A569 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _.
l OBaHelle a a ac - i Pacific Northwest Laboratories P.O. Box 9%
Rkhland, Washington U.S.A. 99352 Telephone (50W 375-3755 reies 1s.2874 June 14, 1985 Mr. Jess Crews NRC Region V 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Dear dess:
l
SUBJECT:
PALO VERDE STARTUP SPECIAL INSPECTION j
As a member of the on-shif t special Inspection Team at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) from May 29 through June 5,
I monitored the licensee's swing shifts at Unit 1.
I monitored the shift-turnover, including the pre-shift-turnover briefings and I made two plant tours to observe l
operations outside of the control room.
I also made a visit to the Chemistry facilities to discuss their measurements of dissolved H2 in the primary coolant.
I had a meeting with Mr. Art Ramey, Quality System Supervisor, to discuss the role of the QA Department at PVNGS.
The operating crews (0PS Departmcnt) that I observed carried out their duties in a correct and professional manner.
As a total perspective, the operating crews exhibited sufficient caution and thoroughness in their handling of initial power ascension operations.
See the addendum page, " Specific Items".
As I indicated in our " exit" meeting, my "on-plant" schedule had been the following:
May 29 8 hrs adnin 29 8 hrs swing June 1 8 hrs swing 2
8 hrs swing 3
8 hrs swing 4
8 hrs swing 5
3 hrs adnin Since ly you.,j
/ in A c&
W. Upton, /r.
J.
enior Research Scientist JWU:cas 8508210427 B50806 PDR ADOCK 05000528 G
SPECIFIC ITEMS NOTED PVNGS STARTUP, LOW POWER PHYSICS TESTS AND INITIAL ASCENT IN POWER MAY 29 THROUGH JUNE 5,1985 1.
The Low Power Physics Test concerning control-rod synetry was conducted proficiently and Reactor Engineering was present in the control room for the tests.
2.
The first time that a D/G was declared inoperable (D/G A) and a test was performed on D/G B, there was some confusion as to the interpretation of the strip chart recording of the D/Gs voltage, speed and frequency.
The zero values were not on the chart paper zero.
I expressed my concern to the STAS and to a QA representative. All subsequent similar tests did not have this problem.
3.
At one time a CPC sensor alarm was received and a computer technician was called to the control room. The shift tech was very unsure of himself and placed a call for guidance.
4.
The potential problem that occurred during the ascent to 3% power with the i
log power reading 1% has been thoroughly discussed.
I reviewed the T-power calculations that were made with the PNS data and was able to document in the NRC log that the maximum power that had been reached was 4.87%.
5.
Chemistry had difficulty in determining the amount of dissolved H2 in the primary coolant.
6.
OPS executed very well. The integration of the STAS, Reactor Engineering, Chemistry, etc.,
with the operations in the control room needs improvement.
l l
l l
J I
I