ML20205E794
| ML20205E794 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 03/13/1987 |
| From: | Kirsch D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Van Brunt E ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205E799 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8703310016 | |
| Download: ML20205E794 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000529/1986033
Text
GT
.
~ ^ '
.,
,
,
,
.1
g
.
'
.
.
...
MAR 131987
- c ,
Docket No. 50-529, 50-530
-Arizona Nuclear Power Project
.P. O. Box 52034
,
.
. Phoenix, Arizona 85702-2034
Attention:
.Mr. E. E. Van Brunt, Jr.
Executive Vice President-
l
'
Subject: NRC Inspection of Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station
~
Units No. 2/3
Gentlemen:
This refers to the special team inspection of December 1-12, 1986, conducted
by Mr. R. C. Barr and other members of our staff, of activities authorized by
'NRC License No. NPF-51 and Construction Permit CPPR-143 and to the discussion-
of our findings held by Mr. Barr with Messrs. Van Brunt, Haynes, Bynum and
other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection. Also
included in this report are the results of a meeting held on February 3,1987
and a telephone conference held on February 6, 1987 to follow-up on several
items identified during the inspection.
Areas examined during this inspection are described in the enclosed inspection
report. 'Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selected examinations
of procedures, records and personnel interviews.
Based on the results of this inspection, it appears 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.
.The inspection objectives were to evaluate whether appropriate corrective
actions were being implemented on a timely basis in response to operating and
maintenance experience at Units 1 and 2 and being translated into preventive
measures at Unit 3.
The inspection focused on design changes initiated by the
electrical discipline. 'All facets of the design change process from problem
, identification', through design efforts, to design change implementation.and
design change package closecut, were examined.
A summary of the areas inspacted is included in Appendix 8.
Overall Conclusion
\\\\
l
The team determined that several aspects of your system engineer program need
'
improvement as evidenced by the following:
-
e
-'
8703310016 870313
ADOCK 0500052';
';
O
-
. - - - - .
--
- - . . - - - - -
,. -..- -.-
-- -
_ - - - , - , - - - .
-
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
\\
s
.
-2-
MAR 131987
The' cognizant system's engineer dispositioning of Engineering Evaluation
. .
Requests-(EER), designated as "information only", lacked clear assignment
of responsibility.
Several' instances were identified where the documented scope of the
.
review of an EER by a system engineer was narrow.
.
iSystem engineers did not regularly evaluate trends or review
.
.
-surveillances and corrective maintenance on systems under their
.
cognizance; therefore, overall system performance evaluations were not
being performed. This practice minimizes the opportunity for predicting
and improving system perfomance.
We recognize that your system engineer program has been in the formative
stages since licensing of Unit-1 and some general improvements have been made.
,
,
'
We~also are aware of the actions you are taking to define the program, as
discussed during management meetings subsequent to this inspection.
,
Nonetheless, in. recognition of the importance of trending and evaluating
,
.o-
-
integrated system performance, we would have expected this program to be more
-
,
- aggressively implemented by this stage in your facility operation;
'
Furthermore, we-are concerned that senior project management appeared unaware
,
of the significant weaknesses in this program, indicating that your oversight
-
of this activity has not been sufficient.
,
'The team. identified an inadequate design in the utilization of thermolag for
cable tray fire barriers due to not having an independently tested
configuration; 'and instances of technical specification ~surveillances having
.
been performed with outdated procedures because appropriate administrative
~
controls had not been implemented to assure procedures were changed
subsequent to a design change. Each of these areas need additional management
attention to prevent reoccurance of these deficiencies.
Our review of the Quality Assurance Program identified two programmatic
-
weaknesses. The scope of the QA review for design changes appears to be poorly
defined. Further, where deficiencies and departures from procedures had been
identified and corrected during the quality review, they had not been-
evaluated for adverse impact on plant operation. Strengthening the QA program
should also have a high management priority.
The team also identified the need for increased attentiveness by plant
personnel, including supervision, during plant rounds and tours to ensure
' adverse conditions are identified and corrected at the earliest opportunity.
,
Specifically, attention to the improper storage of large transient equipment
needs improvement. Several items of improperly stored equipment were
identified during the inspection of December 1-12, 1986 and again during the
followup visit on February 3, 1987.
In your response to the attached Notice
of Violation, please provide a discussion of the apparent ineffectiveness of
your initial corrective actions for this violation.
I
t
.-y-.e.--sv-
me-,---,,,
--,-,-----,-,,,,anwvn-,-,,-.-,,n---.-,ea--,,
- ,, - - , - - - - , - - , . - . , , -
--,,,---------n,-m-,--,,-m--
-e
mn,,,--,,m-w+,-,-,,.,-wv.---
-
.-
.
.
.
. . .
.
.
.:
1
._
..
-3-
MAR 131987
Our review of the Design Change Program concluded, for those areas examined,
,
appropriate corrective actions had been implemented on a timely basis in
response to operating and maintenance experience at Units 1 and 2 and had been
or were planned to be incorporated into preventive measures at Unit 3. Except
for the programatic weaknesses in the system engineer program and the scope of
QA. review of design changes, the programs to implement design changes at your
facility appear to be functioning in an acceptable manner.
We understand that several actions discussed during the exit meeting will be
taken in response to concerns raised by the team. A listing of these actions
is provided in paragraph 9 of the attached report. Please include the status'
of these actions in addition to your response to the enclosed Notice of
Violation.
,
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosures
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
i
to discuss them with you.
1
t
OD bund Sibnf C
!
Dennis F. Kirsch, Director
Division of Reactor Safety and
Projects
'
Enclosures:
"
A.
Appendix A - Notice of Violation
B.
Sumary of Inspection Findings
C.
Inspection Report 50-529/86-33,50-530/86-27
.
cc w/ enclosures A and B:
,
J. G. Haynes, Vice President, Nuclear Production
J. R. Bynum, PVNGS Plant Manager
W. F. Quinn, Manager, Licensing
T. D. Shriver, Manager, Compliance
'
W. E. Ide, Director, Corporate QA/QC
C. N. Russo, Manager, Quality Audits / Monitoring
Ms. Jill Morrison, PVIF
Lynne Bernabei, GAP.
Duke Railsback, ACC
A. C. Gehr, Esq.
!
,
j
_
_ _ . - . _ _ _ _ - _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ , _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _
'
.
,-
j.
,
.
-
,-
,
,
+
.
.
M R 13198i
-4-
bec w/ enclosures:
Project Inspector:
Resident Inspector
-G.
Cook
B. Faulkenberry
J. Martin
R. Huey, SONGS
docket file
bec w/ enclosure A:
M. Smith
LFMB
REGION V/D0T
RBarr
IAhmed
AHon
KIvey
PQualls
'3//3 /8
3//3/87
3//3 /87
3//L]87
3/13 /8 7
99-
<f f
{# V
<W-V
5 >C/
l!OS'f 50" Nf ES"- Eff S0" M'f 00"' h"'f 00"
_
JPetrosino
PStewart
SRichards
RPateh;
ACh fee
3/13 /87
' 3//3 /87
3/l3/,87
3/$/87
3/j
7
4L V
V
<bY
qkL W,
/
E
/-
(Y
AJo n n
DKi
3/p/7
3/p/87
"!!Ef/T "!!"'fC
TO PDR
'
YES / N0