IR 05000813/2009023
| ML17311B257 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde, 05000813  |
| Issue date: | 10/25/1995 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17311B256 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-528-95-16, NUDOCS 9510300198 | |
| Download: ML17311B257 (2) | |
Text
0 ENCLOSURE
NOTICE OF VIOLATION Arizona Public Service Company Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Docket:
50-528 License:
NPF-41 During an NRC inspection conducted on August 13 through September 23, 1995, one violation of NRC requirements was identified.
In accordance with the
"General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"
FR 34381; June 30, 1995, the violation >s listed below:
A.
CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, requires that activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings, of a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings.
Procedure 90AC-OIP04,
"Condition Reporting," Revision 6, Step 3.5.2. 1, requires, in part,. that the Condition Report/Disposition Report (CRDR)
review committee classify a
CRDR in accordance with the guidelines provided in Procedure 90DP-OIP03, Appendix G, "Condition Classification Guide."
Procedure 90DP-OIP03,
"Condition Report Screening and Processing,"
Revision 6, Appendix G, "Condition Classification Guide," Guideline 2, defines "potentially significant," in part, as an event involving a single failure or other condition that concurrently affected (or had the potential to concurrently affect) the operability of components in multiple safety systems, or more than one independent train of a safety system (e.g.,
common mode failure).
Furthermore, Guideline 10, defines
"significant," in part, as an event involving plant safety or reliability that is judged to be significant due to its causes or consequences that may include two or more concurrent failures of redundant components or barriers.
Contrary to the above, on August 15, 1995, the CRDR review committee did not classify CRDR 3-5-0119 as "potentially significant" or
"significant."
This CRDR addressed an August 14 event, involving clogging of the seal water drain line for two of three safety-related charging, pumps, and resulted in the two charging pumps being declared inoperable.
The drain line clogging problem had the common mode potential to render all three pumps inoperable.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I) applicable to Unit 1.
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. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN:
Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C.
20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region IV, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, Texas 76011, and a copy to the NRC Resident 9510300198 951025 PDR ADOCK 05000528
Inspector at the facility that is the subject of this Notice, within 30 days 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:
(I) the reason for the violation, or, if 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 compliance will be achieved.
Your. response may reference or include previous docketed correspondence, if the correspondence adequately addresses the required response.
If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order or a Demand for Information may be issued as to why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked, or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken.
Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.
Because the response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), to the extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction.
However, if it necessary to include such information, it should clearly indicate the specific information that should not be placed in the PDR, and provide the legal basis to support the request for withholding the information from the public.
Dated at Arlington, Texas, this d~~ day of October 1995
~,