ML17299A896

Responds to NRC Re Violations Noted in Insp Rept. Violation Denied.Engineer Not Member of Shift Operating Personnel & Did Not Perform Maint,Repair,Mod or Calibr of safety-related Structures,Sys or Components

ML17299A896
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	11/05/1985
From:	Van Brunt E ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR
To:	Kirsch D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
Shared Package
ML17299A895	List: ML17299A894 ML17299A896
References
ANPP-33926EEVB, TAC-60511, NUDOCS 8512240145
Download: ML17299A896 (7)

Text

~ ~

8512240145 851217 PDR ADOCK 05000528 8

PDR

~c')-- "~/ z5 ~'7 e

Arizona Nuclear Power Project P.O. BOX 52034

~

PHOENIX. ARIZONA85072-2034 November 5, 1985 ANPP-33926EEVB/FJH U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region V 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, CA 94596-5368 Attention'.

Subject:

Mr. D. g..Kirsch, Acting Director Division. of Reactor Safety and Projects Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS)

Unit 1, Docket No.

STN 50-528 (License No. NPF-41)

Response

to, Item 2 of Notice of Violation, dated October 4, 1985, attached as Attachment A

to letter from D. F. Kirsch to E. E. Van Brunt, Jr.,

dated October 4, 1985 File:

85-019-026; D.4.33.2 C?

Dear Gentlemen:

The response of Arizona Public Service Company licensee under Facility Operating License No. NPF-41, to Item 2 of the Notice of Violation, dated October 4,

1985, attached as Attachment A to the letter from D.

F.

Kirsch, Acting Director, Division of Reactor Safety and

Projects, to Arizona Nuclear Power Project dated October 4,

1985 is submitted herewith as Appendix A.

If there are any questions respecting this response, we will be pleased to answer them in a timely manner.

Very truly yours, E. E. Van Brunt, Jr.

Executive Vice President Project Director EEVB/FJH/dliQ Attachment cc:

A. C. Gehr E. A. Licitra R. P.

Zimmerman y(--:/c,j~

~ EO/

~ ~

ATTACHMENT A

RESPONSE

TO ITEM 2 OF NOTICE OF VIOLATION DATED OCTOBER 4, 1985, RESPECTING OVERTIME WORKED BY A MEMBER OF ENGINEERING STAFF OF PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION (NOTICE)

l. ~.Item.2'ofi.Notice q

<,iii>>.. ~;. ";>.

Pp,+1 r ~

I'.=',.'tem;,2 of the Notice alleges as follows:

5+C"J'al<l

< ~ 1

~. C.h

~

L P'1 "i~ '> )o

'Jo "Technical Specification 6.2.2.2

states, in

part, that (a)

Administrative, procedures shall be developed and implemented to limit the working hours of unit.staff who, perform safety-related functions, and

. that, (b)

Operating personnel who perform safety-related work in excess of 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> in any 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period shall have their overtime approved by the PVNGS Manager or his designee".

"Contrary to the above requirements, (1) administrative procedures to limit working hours of the unit staff support engineers who perform safety-related functions had not been developed and implemented, and (2) a member of the unit staff (Operations Engineering Department) worked 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> during the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period beginning at 6:00 PM on August 19, 1985 without the overtime being approved by the PVNGS Plant Manager or his designee.

During the overtime

period,

,the

.engineer took measurements and calculated

'::;..percent of valve travel.during the performance of safety related surveillance testing to satisfy,:Technical Specification requirement 4.5.2.g, which involves verifying the correct position of electrical

and mechanical stops associated with specific emergency core cooling

. throttle valves".

....".,This.is a,severity Level IV Violation (Supplement 1)".

'I 2.

Admissions of Facts J

i I

APS admits that (i) administrative procedures to limit working hours of engineers on the staff of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS)

Operations Engineering Department have not been developed and implemented, (ii) an engineer of the staff of the PVNGS Operations Engineering Department worked 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> during the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period beginning at 6:00 P.M. on August 19, 1985, (iii) the overtime worked by such engineer was not approved by the PVNGS Plant Manager or his designee, and (iv) such engineer took measurements and,calculated percent of valve travel during the performance of safety related surveillance testing to satisfy Technical Specification requirement 4.5.2.g, which involves verifying the correct position of electrical and mechanical stops associated with specific. emergency core cooling throttling valves.

'o ATTACHMENT A Page 2

3.

Denial of Violation.

APS respectfully denies that the foregoing admitted facts constituted a violation of Technical Specification 6.2.2.2 for the reasons set forth below.

'f C,~

g EP)

+0 ~ ~ I

~

The genesis of the limitations upon overtime work is found in the TMI-2 I,essons Learned Task Force Final Report (NUREG-0585).

Recommendation 3 of such Final Report provides:

"Each licensee should be required to review and revise within 90 days the 'plant administrative procedures to assure that a

sound policy is established covering working hours for reactor o erators and senior reactor o erators.

In the event special circumstances arise that would cause extended periods of work in excess of 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> for more than two consecutive

days, such work in excess of 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> should be authorized by the Station Manager with appropriate documentation of the cause.

[Emphasis supplied.J This Lessons Learned recommendation was followed first by NRC Generic Letter No. 82-02, second by Item I.A.1.3 of NUREG-0737 and third, by NRC Generic Letter No. 82-12 issued to clarify and revise the original NUREG-0737 requirements.

The clarification and revision of NUREG-0737 overtime requirement was necessary to incorporate the provisions of the Commission's policy statement on this subject matter.

Examination of the Commission's policy is relevant to the proper interpretation of Technical Specification 6.2.2.2 of License No.

NPF-41.

Initially, the title of the Commission's statement makes it unmistakenly clear that it was intended to address fatigue of "operating personnel" only.

"Policy on Factors Causing Fatigue of 0 eratin Personnel at Nuclear Reactors"

[Emphasis supplied.]

The phrase "operating personnel" found in he title times in the text'of the policy.

On its face, the personnel" would exclde the application of non-operating, engineering personnel.

is repeated three phrase "operating the policy to The text of the policy reinforces this conclusion several ways.

First, it is stated that the purpose of the= required administrative controls of overtime is:

to prevent situations where: fatigue could reduce the ability of operating personnel to keep the reactor in a safe condition.

The controls should focus on shift staffin

ATTACHMENT A Page 3

"The objective of the controls would be to assure

that, to the extent practicable, ersonnel are not assi ned to shift duties while. in a fatigued. condition....

The controls shall apply to the plant staff who perform safety-related functions

(~e.

senior o erators, reactor o erators health h sicists auxiliar o erators, and ke maintenance ersonnel)."

'>"4".[Emohasis-suonlied; j--*<- - -- " ~-- -o.

~-"

~ --..

~

~ -+

~

~

ta

~ s 1

s s

3

~ J I*

~

s The,repeatedy<<references

'o'shift ~ staffing".,

"shift duties" and "shift turnover time" found in the Commission's policy (and repeated in NUREG-0737, Item.I.A.1.3.. as revised).

makes it clear that thef Commission's intent was to limit. the required administrative overtime controls to "shift o eratin ersonnel".

It is obvious that engineering staff personnel cannot be placed in the originally intended classification of "shift operating personnel".=-

However, despite the explicit guidance in the Commission's policy that the administrative overtime controls "should focus on shift

~staffin ",

NRR issued Generic letter 83-14 to state its definition of the term "key maintenance personnel" as used in its earlier guidance in Generic Letter 82-12

. After providing the definition, Generic Letter 83-14 goes on to state:

"The term applies to all personnel who are actually performing

[the specified]

functions, regardless of whether or not they are assigned to the shift crew".

No justification was provided for this enlargement upon the Commission's policy.

I Nonetheless, the definition of "key maintenance personnel" is limited to personnel who are.performing or immediately supervising the performance of certain, specified functions, to wit:

"maintaining,

repair, modification or calibration of safety related structures, systems or components".

The Notice does not describe any of these specifically proscribed functions.

Rather, it states that" o

e~

"During the ovetime period, the engineer took measurements and calculated percent of valve travel during the performance of safety-related surveillance testing...."

None of the cited activities constitute either (i) maintenance, (ii) repair, (iii) modification, or (iv) calibration of safety related structures, systems or components.

s I

ATTACHMENT A Page 4

The record in the. Palo Verde docket is explicit that APS interpreted the NUREG-0737 overtime requirement as being applicable only to the following categories:

"senior reactor operators, reactor operators, radiation protection technicians, auxiliary operators, IGC technicians and key maintenance personnel."

See PVNGS I,essons Learned.. Interim,, Report,,..Section I.A.1.3...',Staff engineering personnel do not fall into any of thse categories.

The NRR.distaff accepted.this.'interpretation in its Safety Evaluation

Report, dated

November, 1981, Section 13.5.1.3 when it is stated in pertinent part:....

d "The applicant has described the program and procedures that provide adminitrative controls over activities important to safety.

These include... limitations on working hours The staff hap revised these provisions and find that they meet the staff guidance described in....

The applicable parts of NUREG-0737, Items I.A.1.2-, I.A.1.3 This conclusion of the NRR staff in the Palo Verde docket is consistent with recent licensing actions taken in other dockets.

For

example, in Docket 50-206 (San Onofre Unit 1)

NRR issued an amendment of License DPR-13 Technical Specifications which adopted "The Licensee's proposed TS

[which] specifically define the job classifications subject to overtime limitations".

The specified job classification were:

licensed operators, auxiliary operators, health physicists, electricians, instrumentation and control technicians, computer technicians, machinists, boiler mechanics, contractor personnel, etc.

and their first line supervisors".

The NRR staff concluded:,.

"Based on the review of the gob

,coverage proposed by the

licensee, the staff concludes that the proposed TS conform to the applicable guidance".

,[See Section 3.'A. of the Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Supporting Amendment No.

88 to Provisional Operating License No. DPR-13, dated March 6, 1985.]

For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the activities described in the Notice of Violation do not constitute a

violation of Technical Specification 6.2.2.2.

4.

Corrective Ste s Taken and Results Achieved Not applicable.

However, to clarify the proper interpretation of Technical Specification 6.2.2.2, by APS will seek an amendment thereof identifying the specific gob classification to which the overtime limitations shall apply.

ATTACHMENT A Page 5

5.

Corrective Ste s Taken to Prevent Recurrence Not Applicable.

6.

Date When Full Com lienee Will Be Achieved APS" has fully complied with Technical Specification 6.2.2.2 at all times.