IR 05000528/1990039
| ML17305B305 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 01/09/1991 |
| From: | Zimmerman R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Conway W ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9101150012 | |
| Download: ML17305B305 (9) | |
Text
Docket Nos.
50-528, 50-529, 50-530 JAND- '~~~
Arizona Public Service Company P.
0.
Box 53999 Phoenix, Arizona 85072-3999 Attention:
Nr.
M.
F.
Conway Executive Vice President, Nuclear Gentlemen:
Thank you for your letter of December 3,
1990, in response to our Notice of Violation and Inspection Report No.
50-528/90-39, dated November 2,
1990, informing us of the steps you have taken to correct the items which we brought to your attention.
Your corrective actions will be verified during a future inspection.
Your cooperation with us is appreciated.
Sincerely, cc:
T. Bradish, APS bcc w/copy of letter dated 12/3/90:
docket file State of Arizona A. Johnson G.
Cook B. Faulkenberry J. Hartin Resident Inspector Project Inspector J. Zoll'icoffer N.Smith'.
P.
Zimmerman, Director Division of Reactor Safety and projects REGION V/dot DCoe 4~
J
'ngwald M>/A +~
/90 t 7 q(
JSlo n
12/
C wnsend
/90 YES /
NO YE
/
YES /
NO YE
/
HMong @~
&/p/A'
E
/
NO
]
j SRi chords ES /
NO Jo eon/Blume RZimmerma~~
YES /
ES /
NO 9iOii500i e 9i0109 PDR, ADOC)( 05000529
NO
'e Arizona Public Service Company--
P.O. BOX 53999
~
PHOENIX. ARIZONA85072-3999 WILLIAMF. CONWAY EXECUTIVEVICE PRESIDENT NUCI.EAR 102-01913-WFC/TRB/JJN December 3, 1990 U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention:
Document Control Desk Mail Station:
Pl-37 Pashington, DC 20555 Reference:
Letter from R.
P.
Zimmerman, Director Division of Reactor Safety and Projects,'RC to W. F.
Conway, Executive Vice President Nuclear, Arizona Public Service, dated November 2,
1990
Dear,
Sirs:
Subj ect:
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS)
Unit 1, 2,
and
Docket No.
STN 50-528 (License No. NPF-41)
Docket No.
STN 50-529 (License No. NPF-51)
Docket No.
STN 50-530 (License No. NPF-74)
Reply to Notice of Violation 50-528/90-39-01 File'0-070-026 This letter is provided in response to the inspection conducted by Messrs.
DE Coe, J. Ringwald, J.
Sloan, and C. Townsend from August 25 through September 29, 1990.
Based upon the results of the inspection, one apparent violation of NRC requirements was identified.
A restatement of the violation and APS's response are provided in Appendix A and Attachment 1, respectively, to this letter.
Should you have any questions regarding this response, please contact me.
Very truly yours, WFC/TRB/JJN/dmn Attachments
.'~I~ 4++
I j/
+
fv" 4'+<
cc:
J.
B. Martin D.
H.
Coe A. H. Gutterman A. C. Gehr
~
'
NRC Document Control Desk Appendix, Page
102-1913-MFC/TRB/J JN December 3,
1990 APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Arizona Public Service Company Palo Verde Unit 1 Docket Number 50-528 License Number NPF-41 During an NRC inspection conducted on August 25 through September 29, 1990, a
violation of NRC requirements was identified.
In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, A'ppendix C (1990),
the violation is listed below:
CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, states in part that, "In the case of significant conditions"adverse to quality, the measures shall assure that the cause of the condition. is determined and corrective action taken to preclude repetition.
The identification of this significant condition adverse to quality, the cause of the conditio'n, and the corrective action taken shall be documented and reported to appropriate levels of management."
Contrary to the above, on August 21, 1990, the Auxiliary Feedwater Pump AFA-P01 was inoperable due to a failed relay.
The cause of this significant condition adverse to quality was not determined and corrective actions were not taken to preclude recurrence.
Recurrence of the failure of an identical type of relay occurred in Unit 2 on September 26, 1990.
This is a Severity Level IV violation applicable to Unit 1 (Supplement I).
'
'I NRC Document Control Desk Attachment 1,
Page 1 of 3 102-01913-WFC/TRB/JJN December 3,
1990 ATTACHMENT 1 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 50-528 90-28-03 I.
REASON FOR THE VIOLATION Although all site personnel have the responsibility to initiate a Root Cause of Failure (RCF) Engineering Evaluation Request (EER) and/or Material Nonconformance Report (MNCR) when appropriate, for the circumstances of this event, APS procedures specify that the Shift Technical Advisor (STA) had the responsibility to initiate a RCF EER.
After the Operations Shift Supervisor has initiated a Technical Specification Component Condition Report (TSCCR)
and checked the component failure block, the TSCCR procedure specifically requires the STA to initiate an RCF EER.
A TSCCR was initiated for the failure of the Auxiliary,Feedwater Pump (AFP) Surveillance Test (ST), but the STA failed to initiate the required RCF EER.
The exact reason for the STA's failure to initiate the RCF EER could not be determined.
The responsible individual could not recall this specific instance.
However, the individual was fully aware of his responsibilities to initiate an RCF EER under these conditions.
After the AFP failed a ST, a Work Request was initiated.
The planner, who developed the Work Order to troubleshoot the AFP, notified the
~"
NRC Document Control Desk Attachment 1, Page 2 of 3 102-01913-WFC/TRB/JJN December 3,
1990 System Engineer (SE)
as required when the Work Request identifies a
condition requiring a RCF EER.
During the troubleshooting, the SE was present and assisted in the determination that the relay had failed.
The System Engineer had assumed that an RCF EER or an MNCR had been initiated but did not verify this assumption.
II.
CORRECTIVE STEPS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN AND THE RESULTS ACHIEVED Although not specifically in response to this event, APS is providing root cause of failure training to the technical staff which includes the STAs, Planners, and SEs.
This training will include the criteria for initiating an RCF EER.
The STA was counseled regarding his responsibilities for initiating an RCF EER.
An STA night order was written to provide guidance for initialling the TSCCR form to identify that the required RCF EER has been initiated.
The System Engineer's Supervisor discussed his expectation with the SE that the SE initiate or verify the existence of an RCF EER for the failure.