IR 05000528/1993029
| ML20057C583 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 09/09/1993 |
| From: | Bocanegra R, Coolentz L, Namish N, Reese J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20057C577 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-528-93-29, 50-529-93-29, 50-530-93-29, NUDOCS 9309290135 | |
| Download: ML20057C583 (18) | |
Text
h i
.
NOTICE OF VIOLATION Arizona Public Service Company Dockets 50-528, 50-529, 50-530 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Licenses NPF-41, NPF-51, NPF-74 EA 93-218 During an NRC inspection conducted on June 21, 1993 to July 9,1993, three
!
violations of NRC requirements were identified.
In accordance with the
" General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10
CFR Part 2, Appendix C, the violations are listed below:
A.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, " Corrective Actions," states l
in part:
" Measures shall be established to assure that conditions
'
adverse to quality, such as failures, malfunctions, deficiencies,
,
deviations, defective material and equipment, and non-conformances are
-
promptly identified and corrected."
{
l
'
Contrary to the above, despite the licensee Chemistry Manager's receipt of a December 10, 1992 letter from Combustion Engineering identifying the potential for dilution of samples taken from the hot leg blowdown for
secondary steam generator water chemistry, a condition adverse to quality, the licensee failed to establish measures to assure that the problem was corrected. Specifically, the licensee did not change the
,
sample location for steam generator secondary water radioactivity
,
measurements from the hot leg blowdown to another location, thus
-
providing inaccurate results.
This is a Severity level IV violation (Supplement I).
'
,
B.
TS 6.8.1 requires procedures to be established, implemented, and
.
maintained as recommended in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.33, l
February 1978.
RG 1.33, Appendix A, Section 7.g recommends procedures
,
for process radiation monitoring system operation.
l Licensee Procedure 74RM-9EF41, " Radiation Monitoring Alarm Response Procedure," requires several operations response actions for " alert" and
,
"high" alarms on RU-15, the waste gas area combined ventilation exhaust
.
monitor. These required responses include acknowledging the alarm,
.
verifying the alarm, informing personnel of possible airborne radiation i
or contamination hazards, and notifying the effluents group.
'
Procedure 74RM-9EF41 further requires the Radiation Monitoring System technician to verify the monitor's database for proper setpoints and
conversion factors, and then notify the Shift Supervisor.
Licensee Procedure 74RM-9EF42, " Radiation Monitor Alarm Setpoint.
-l Determination," requires that changes to the " alert" and "high" alarm i
setpoints ba documented in Appendix J to the procedure and that the basis i
for the change be documented in Appendix K.
The procedure further requires that the basis for the setpoint change be reviewed and approved by the Unit Radiation Protection Manager (RPM) or designee prior to implementation.
l
'
.
9309290135 930908 PDR ADOCK 05000528L G
PDR,_
, _ - _
_
-
_ _ _, _
-
.
- ~, -_-
..
y
.
1 l
-
l Contrary to the above:
1.
On May 4,1993, at 8:50 am, the licensee failed to implement Procedure 74RM-9EF41, in that Unit 2 radiation monitor RU-15 alarmed
!
on both the " alert" and "high" alarms, but operations personnel
failed to verify the alarm, inform personnel of possible airborne or
!
contamination hazards, and notify the effluents group.
'
!
2.
On March 14,1993, at 4.:43 am, the licensee failed to implement
,
Procedure 74RM-9EF41 in that the Unit 2 control room received a main
'
steam line "high" alarm on radiation monitor RU-140, but the i
Radiation Monitoring System technician did not -verify the monitor's database for proper setpoints and conversion factors, and did not notify the Shift Supervisor.
!
3.
On March 14, 1993, at 3:13 am and again at 3:48 am, the licensee
!
failed to implement procedure 74RM-9EF42 in that a Unit 2 Radiation
Monitoring System technician changed the " alert" and "high" alarm y
setpoints on RU-15, but prior to making the changes, failed to perform the following required actions:
,
Obtain the Unit 2 RPM's review and concurrence for the revised setpoint bases.
Document the setpoint changes in Appendix J j
Document the bases for the setpoint changes in Appendix K.
'
!
This is a Severity Level-IV violation (Supplement IV).
!
C.
TS 6.8.1 requires procedures to be established, implemented, and
,
maintained as recommended in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.33, i
February 1978.
RG 1.33, Appendix A, Section 7.e(4) recommends procedures
]
for contamination control
Licensee Procedure 75RP-9MC02, " Leak Testing and Inventory of Radioactive
Sources," Revision 1, dated February 1,1992, Section 3.2.1, establishes general leak test requirements.
Section 3.2.1.7 requires the individual
performing leak tests to use leak testing methods capable of detecting, on the test sample, a minimum of 1000 dpm of removable beta / gamma
contamination' and 20 dpm of removable alpha contamination.
Contrary to the above, on February 9,1993, the licensee failed to l
implement the provisions of 75RP-9MC02, Section 3.2.1.7, in that leak
'
testing methods used to test a Cd-109 source were not capable of detecting the minimum limit of 1000 dpm of reliiovable beta / gamma contamination.
,
i This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement IV).
i
,
.
-_ _.
..
.
,
,
-
.
_
__
.
-
I
i Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Arizona Public Service Company is
'
hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S.
!
Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN:
20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region V, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, within 30 days
,
-l of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice).
This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and
,
should include for each violation:
(1) the reason for the violation, or, if i
contested, the basis for disputing the violation, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when full
,
If an adequate reply is not received within the compliance will be achieved.
time specified in this Notice, an order or a Demand for Information may be
,'
issued to show cause why the license should not be modified, suspended, orWhere revoked, or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken.
good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.
.
Dated at Walnut Creek, California this
day of,fo65+4sq 1993 l
,
h l
l l
!
i i
f i
i i
-,
.
..
- -.
,