ML17305A395
| ML17305A395 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 11/01/1989 |
| From: | Zimmerman R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Conway W ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17305A396 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8911210192 | |
| Download: ML17305A395 (12) | |
See also: IR 05000528/1989028
Text
gc CEIZRATED
DISTRIBUTfON
DEMONSTRATION
SYFI'ZM
REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTXON SYSTEM (RIDS)
DOCKET
05000528
05000529
05000530
SUBJECT:
Forwards
Insp Repts
50-528/89-28,50-529/89-28
6 50-530/89-28
on 890807-0901
DISTRIBUTION CODE:
IEOID
COPIES
RECEIVED'LTR
l
ENCL
1
SIZES'I
TITLE: General
(50 Dkt)-Znsp Rept/Notice of Violation Response
CESSION NBR:8911210192
DOC.DATE: 89/11/01
NOTARIZED: NO
CIL:STN-50-528 Palo Verde Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Arizona Publi
STN-50-529 Palo Verde Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Arizona Publi
STN-50-530 Palo Verde Nuclear Station,
Unit 3, Arizona Publi
AUTH.NAME
AUTHOR AFFILIATION
ZIMMERMAN,R.P.
Region
5, Ofc of the Director
RECIP.NAME
RECIPIENT AFFILIATION
CONWAY,W.F.
Arizona Public Service
Co. (formerly Arizona Nuclear
Power
NOTES: Standardized
plant.
Standardized
plant.
'I
1
RECIPIENT
ID CODE/NAME
PD5
DAVISPM.
INTERNAL: ACRS
AEOD/DEIIB
DEDRO
NRR/DEST DIR
NRR/DOEA DIR 11
NRR/DREP/RPB
10
NRR/PMAS/ZLRB12
OE LIEBE MANPJ
EG FX 'E
02
GN
FILE
01
EXTERNAL: LPDR
NSIC'OTES
I
COPIES
LTTR ENCL
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
RECXPIENT
ID CODE/NAME
CHANPT
AEOD/TPAD
NRR SHANKMANPS
NRR/DLPQ/PEB
NRR/DREP/EPB
10
NRR/DRIS/DIR
NUDOCS-ABSTRACT
OGC/HDS1
MORISSEAUPD
NRC PDR
COPIES
LTTR ENCL
1
'
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
a
1
1
S
05000528
05000529 /
05000530
h
TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES
REQUIRED:
LTTR
28
ENCL
28
l
(
I
k
1
I
C
1
CMFIKP STATES
NUCLEAR RRQULATORY COMMlSSION
~ON V
~ MANALANE.Sllfl%%0
WALNUTCftEEK, CAUfOltNN0%004%6
x S8S
Socket Nos. 50-528, 50 529, 50-530
hrfzona Nuclear Power Prefect
P.O. Box 52034
Phoenfx, hrfrona 85072-2034
Attentfon:
Nr. M. F. Conway,
Executive Vfce President
Gentleaen:
Subject:
NRC INSPECTION OF PhLO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATION STATION
lNIY NOS. 1/2/3
Thfs refers to the maintenance
team inspection conducted by Mr. h. D'Angelo
and other aeabers of the
NRC staff during the period August 7 through
September 1, )989.
'Ms inspection examined your activities's authorfred by
NRC License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-5) and NPF-74.
Discussion of our findings was
held with you and with oeabers of your staff at the conclusion of the
fnspectf on.
Areas examined during this inspection are described 'fn the enclosed
inspection report.
Nthfn these areas,
the inspection consisted of selective
examination of procedures
and representative
records,
interviews with
personnel,
and observations
by the inspectors.
Xns ection Overvfew
The findings cif our'ugmented Inspection Team (AIT) conducted fn March 1989
fndfcated that the.Unft 3
Unusual Event of March 3, 1989, was caused in part
by multfpie equipment faflures due to apparent
improper mafntenance or the
absence of required maintenance.
It was determined that a thorough
evaluation of your aafntenance activities was needed.
This inspection was conducted to determine the effectiveness of the
fntegr'ated maintenance
process at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station,
and to assure that structures,
systems
and components of the facility are
adequately aaintafned
so that they are available to perform their intended
functions.
Specific inspection emphasis
was focused on the followfng
obgectf ves:
Assess the effectiveness of the maintenance
program troubleshooting
and
testing activities.
2.
Assess the effectiveness of system engineer
and corporate engineering
fnvolvement fn, and understanding of maintenance
operations
and
associated
contributions to the identification, solution, and prevention
of safety significant technical problems
and deficiencies fn plant
systems
and operations.
agff2fOf92
>OOO5PB
qffof
pDR
@DOCK O
pgU
~G
~
~
C
Assess the effectiveness of evaluation and implementation of plant
betterment items, including awareness
and actions regarding industry
1nftfatfves, such as equi paent performance aonftorfng and preventive
~ainte nance.
4.
Assess the status of corrective actions for Self-Assessacnt
efforts fn
the aaf ntenance
area.
Na or Concerns
Hf lf ted 8
This Ins ection
The aost significant issue which surfaced during the inspection
was the
continued poor performance by System Engineering.
This was hfghlfghted by
their lack of involvement in several
issues
described in the attached report.
Specific examples include the eaterfal
storage issue, in which known
deficiencies existed for five years without resolution,
and the continued
troubleshooting
on the aafn feedwater
pump, which also indicated a lack of
Hgor %n resolving problems.
There appeared to be a belief among site management that the prfmary cause of
the problems with System Engineering fs the level of knowledge of the
individual system engfneers.
Although ft appears to be appropriate to have a
goal to raise the level of qualfffcatfon of the system engfneers, this does
not appear to be the cost urgently needed
improvement.
The inspection team
consensus
was that all system engineers
interviewed were capable
and appeared
to be knowledgeable of their assigned
systems.
However, there appeared to be
4 lack of clear definition of standards
or example 'set by supervision
as to
acceptable
performance.
Furthermore,
supervisors
.dfd not appear to be
Wiling to spend time in the field with their staff to improve system
engineer per formance.
As discussed in detail in the attached report, the inspection identified
several findings associated fifth the systems
inspected.
Underlyfng each of
the findings was one or sore of the following basic concerns:
X.
~
Xnade uate Problem Resolutfon
Your program for identification and correction of conditions adverse to
quality needs to be strengthened,
as we understand
you are doing.
In
addition, several ffndfngs indicate that implementation of existing
programs for identifying problems are deficient.
The team noted several unidentified, nonconforming condftfons that could
lead to equipment failures.
Examples included ongoing oil leaks on the
operating charging pumps, materfal storage
problems involving known
deficiencies which have existed fol five years without resolution,
and
the need for continued troubleshooting
on the main feedwater
pump. It
appeared to the team that licensee
management
focused
more attention
on
treating the symptoms of problems, rather than finding permanent
solutions to those problems.
~
~
e
2.
Xnade uate Work Plannin
The team noted a lack of rigorous planning by maintenance
planning and
system engineering organizations.
Many work plans contiined minimal
direction and referred to reference
Water ial without delineating
specific requirements to be followed.
The main feed pump.
troubleshooting plan did not appear to be broad enough 4n ccope or
sufficiently detailed to identify any specific component as the source
of the problem.
The exception to these observations
was the team
consensus that Operational
Computer System maintenance
was rigorous and
involved thorough planning of work activities.
Inade uate Attention to Detail in Work Im lementation
e
The team noted several
instances of informality and a lack of attention
to detail in the conduct of day to day work.
This attitude was also
aoted outside the maintenance
organization.
Examples noted by the team
included technicians performing steps of a work order without signing
thea off, and technicians relying on inaccurate
measuring
equipment to
set exciter voltages on the diesel generator.
Xa addition, there appears to be unusually largedifferences
between each of
the units in the implementation of all aspects of the maintenance
program.
Significant variations were observed in areas
such as cwork Control
organizations
knowledge of maintenance
and other plant activities; use of
procedures
as opposed to custom written work orders;
and cleanliness,
even
considering the respective status of unit operation.
Unit 3 appeared to be
sore proficient in most of the areas
where differences were observed.
This
raises
concern that there are significant differences in program
adNnistration throughout the site.
Many of the observations of this inspection are consistent with the results
af Palo Verde employee feedback and management
overview programs.
Increased
attention to these results is warranted to ensure that prompt corrective
actions are properly implemented.
The Naintenance
Tree (Appendix C of the enclosed inspection report) reflects
our assessment.
The 8aintenance
Tree also illustrates our conclusion that
you have recently established
.some
good maintenance
program elements.
However, their integration into the overall maintenance
program has not
completely addressed
the apparent deficiencies which exist.
Continued
aanagement
emphasis
and inittatives appear to be warranted in both program
and implementation areas.
Based on the inspection results, it appears that certain of your activities
were not conducted in full compliance with HRC requirements,
as set forth in
the Notice of Violation enclosed
herewith as Appendix A.
Your response to
this Notice is to be submitted in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, as stated in the Notice of Violation..
Ve would also appreciate your written comments regarding the major
programmatic concerns identified by the inspection
and discussed
above.
~
C
'
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a),
a copy of this letter and the enclosures
<<All be placed in the
NRC Public Document
Room.
The responses
directed by this letter are not subject to the clearance
procedures of the Office of Nanagement
and Budget as required hy the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,
PL 96-511.
Should you have any questions
concerning this inspection,
we will be glad to
discuss thea &th you.
Sincerely,
'RP
R. P.
mmerman, Director
Division of Reactor Safety and Projects
Enclosures:
1.
Appendix A (Notice of Violation)
2.
Inspection Report Nos. 50-528/89-28
50"529/89-28
50-530/89-28
cc w/enclosure:
J.
H. Levine, Vice President,
Nuclear Production
A N. Bailey, Vice President,
Licensing and Nuclear Safety
M. F. guinn, Director, Nuclear Safety 8 Licensing
'.
E. Ballard, Sr., Director, guality Assurance
T. D. Shriver, Hanager,
Compliance
C. N. Russo,
Manager,
QA Audits/Honitoring
A. C. Rogers,
Hanager, Licensing
D. Cana+,
Lynne Bernabei,
GAP
James
R. Brown, ACC
A. C. Gehr, Esq. Snell 5 Nlaer
I
~
C
bcc w/enclosures:
Project Inspector
Resident
Inspector
docket file
G.
Cook,
RV
B. Faulkenberry,
RV
J. Martin,
RV
A. Toth,
RV
A. D'Angelo,'RV
W. Wagner,
RV
M. Miller, RV
C. Sorensen,
RV
C.
Ramsey,
RV
M. Cillis,
RV
T.
Chan,
NRR/PD5
P. Prescott,
NRR/LPEB
V. Hodge,
NRR/OGCB
W. Thomasson,
AEOD/TPAB
T. Wolf, AEOD/TPAB
J.
Roe,
NRR/DLPQ
R.
Nease,
NRR/LPEB
W. Haass,
RI/DRS
A. Gibson,
RII/DRS
H. Miller, RIII/DRS
L. Callan,
RIV/DRS
J. Curtis,
OCM/JC
bcc w/o enclosure
2:
J. Zollicoffer
M. Smith
N. Western
bcc w/o enclosure
2:
J. Zollicoffer
M. Smith
N. Western
REGION V/dot
RHuey A.Qg
T ull>van
>>/a>7<> A
>0/pg/N
SRic ards
10/g~/89
AJoh
on
10~ /89
US
YES /
NO
gA
a
ee
10/g V89
S
C
P
YES /
NO
smmerman
~/ I /89
gpss
US
S
E
/
NO
YES /
> Cx
b
UEST
C
PY
R QUEST
C
PY
REQUEST
COPY
ES /
NO
YES /
0
YES /
NO
SEND T
S /
NO
r