ML17305A378
| ML17305A378 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 10/27/1989 |
| From: | Kirsch D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Conway W ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17305A379 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8911140002 | |
| Download: ML17305A378 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000528/1989041
Text
OCT ~~
Docket Nos.
50-528,
50-529,
50-530
Arizona Nuclear
Power Project
P.
0.
Box 52034
Phoenix, Arizona
85072-2034
Attention:
Mr.
W.
F.
Conway
Executive Vice President,
Nuclear
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
NRC INSPECTION OF
PALO VERDE UNITS 1,
2
AND 3
This letter refers to the routine inspection
by Messrs.
J.
Burdoin,
C. Clark,
C. Myers,
and
F.
Gee, of this office on September
19-29,
1989, of activities
authorized
by
NRC License
Nos.
and to the
discussion of our findings held with members of your staff at the conclusion
of the inspection.
Areas
examined during this inspection are described .in the enclosed
inspection
report.
Within these
areas,
the inspection consisted of selective
examinations of procedures
and representative
records,
interviews with
personnel,
and observations-
by the inspectors.
This inspection identified a number of deficiencies
which. reinforce the
continuing
NRC concern
about the adequacy of licensee
engineering
and
technical
work and the level of involvement of cognizant engineering
personnel
in plant activities.
In particular,
the inspectors
noted the following:
(1)
The licensee
did not adhere
to the intent of the design
commitment stated
in UFSAR Section 11.5 to comply with ANSI N13.1-1969,
"Guide to Sampling
Airborne Radioactive Materials in Nuclear Facilities."
Although the
licensee installation does not involve a clear violation of regulatory
requirements,
when considered
in conjunction with the other observed
deficiencies, it demonstrates
a clear lack of involvement by cognizant
engineering
personnel
in the radiation monitor design
and installation
process.
(2)
The engineering
and design control for the installation of the isokinetic
air samplers
was inadequate
as evidenced
by the fact that:
(a)
Design assumptions
involving a Unit 1 radioactive particulate
plateout study were applied 'to Units 2 and
3 without properly
accounting for design differences.
(b)
The methods of installation of monitors
was not consistently
implemented for the three units.
(3)
Cognizant
system engineering
personnel
were not familiar with the
location, function or design requirements for the isokinetic monitoring
system.
8%i f140002 891027
ADQCK 05000M8
9 .,
PNV
-
~ 4*~
~I
lt
~
No violations or deviations
were identified within the scope of this
inspection.
In accordance
with 10 CFR 2.790(a),
a copy of this letter and the enclosure
will be placed in the
NRC Public Document
Room.
Should you have
any questions
concerning this inspection,
we will be pleased
to discuss
them with you.
Sincerely,
D.
F. Kirsch, Chief
Reactor Safety Branch
Enclosure:
Inspection
Report Nos. 50-528/89-41,
50-529/89-41,
and 50-530/89-41
cc w/enclosure:
J.
M. Levine,
W.
F. guinn,
B.
E. Ballard, Sr.,
T.
D. Shriver,
C.
N. Russo,
D.
Canady,
D.
B. Karner;
A.
C.
Rogers,
L. Bernabei,
GAP
J.
R.
Brown,
ACC
A.
C. Gehr,
ESq., Snell 5 Wilmer
bcc w/enclosure:
Project Inspector
Resident Inspector
docket file
R.
Nease,
G.
Cook,
RV
B. Faulkenberry,
RV
J. Martin
bcc w/o enclosure:
M. Smith
J. Zollicoffer
N. Western
'
-3"
REGION V
JBurdoin/
o
FGee
10/29/89: '0/Zl/89 +(
CClark
CMyers
10/A$/89
10/zg 89
pJ.c.,
xgJfr-
QUEST 'P
R
EST
EST
COPY
YES2 /
] YES /
NO
ES /
NO
]
Huey
irschl g
10/4'98
10/ /8/9
R
EST
COPY ]
EST
COPY ]
ES /
NO
E
/
NO
SERO
TO
POR
j
ES /
,