ML17305A429
| ML17305A429 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 11/22/1989 |
| From: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Conway W ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17305A430 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8912110096 | |
| Download: ML17305A429 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000528/1989048
Text
ACCELERATED DISTB2BUTION DEMONST$&TION SYSTEIVT
DOCKET g
05000528
05000529
05000530
SUBJECT:
Forwards
SALP Repts 50-528/89-48,50-529/89-48
6 50-530/89-48
for period Nov 1988
Oct 1989.
DISTRIBUTION CODE:
IE40D
COPIES
RECEIVED:LTRj ENCLi
SIZE:
+5'+
TITLE: Systematic
Assessment
of Licensee
Performance
(SALP) Report
REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)
'P
ACCESSION NBR:8912110096
DOC.DATE: 89/11/22
NOTARIZED: NO
FACIL: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
MARTIN,J.B.
.
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.
RECIPIENT
ID CODE/NAME
PD5
LA
CHAN,T
INTERNAL: ACRS
AEOD/DSP/TPAB
DEDRO
NRR/DLPQ/LHFB11
NRR/DOEA/OEAB11
NRR/DREP/PRPB1 1
~
NRR/DRIS/RSIB9A
NUDOCS-ABSTRACT
OGC/HDS1
RGN5
FILE
01
EXTERNAL: L ST LOBBY WARD
NRC
NOTES:
COPIES
LTTR ENCL
1
0.
"1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
RECIPIENT
ID CODE/NAME
PD5
DAVIS,M.
AEOD/DOA
COMMISSION
NRR SHANKMAN,S
NRR/DLPQ/LPEB10
NRR/DREP/PEP B9 D
NRR/DRIS/RSGB9 D
NRR/PMAS/ILRB12
0
EG FILE
LPDR
COPIES
LTTR ENCL
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
'
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
05000528
05000529
A
05000530
B
R
D
NOTE TO ALL"RIDS" RECIPIENTS:
A
D
D
PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASTEI CONTACI'HE,DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK,
ROOM Pl-37 (EXT. 20079) TO ELIMINATEYOUR NAMEFROM DISTRIBUTION
LISTS FOR DOCUMENTS YOU DON'T NEED!
TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES
REQUIRED:
LTTR
34
ENCL
33
.
~yQ RKQ(p
a4
0
Cy
~c
1
lv
O
Op
Vp+
~O
+a**+
Docket Nos.
50-528,
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
1460 MARIALANE, SUITE 210
WALNUTCREEK, CALIFORNIAS16964368
50-529 and 50-530
Arizona Nuclear
Power Project
P.
O.
Box 52034
Phoenix, Arizona
85072-2034
Attention:
Mr.
M.
F.
Conway
Executive Vice President,
Nuclear
r
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT
OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE,
REPORT
NUMBERS
50-528/89-48,
50-529/89-48
AND 50-530/89-48
The
NRC Systematic
Assessment of Licensee
Performance
(SALP) Board has
completed its periodic evaluation of the performance of the Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station for the period November 1, 1988 through October 31, 1989.
The performance of Palo Verde was evaluated
in the functional areas of plant
operations,
radiological controls, maintenance/surveillance,
emergency
preparedness,
secunty,
engineering/technical
support,
and safety
assessment/quality
verification.
The criteria used in conducting this
assessment
and the
SALP Board's evaluation of your performance
in these
functional areas
are contained in the enclosed
SALP report.
Based
upon discussions
with your staff,
a management
meeting to discuss
the
results of the
SALP Board's
assessment
has
been scheduled for December 1,
1989, in the Ari.zona Public Service corporate
headquarters,
Phoenix,
AZ.
Arrangements for the management
meeting will be discussed
further with your
staff in the near future.
Overall, the
SALP Board found the performance of licensed activities at Palo
Verde to be satisfactory
and directed
toward safe facility operation.
The
SALP ratings assigned
to the functional areas
assessed,
taken
as
a whole,
indicate that the overall performance
level at Palo Verde is presently
approximately the
same
as it was at the conclusion of the previous
period.
In reviewing your performance trend during this assessment
period,
your overall performance
continued
on a negative trend during the first six
months of the period.
In contrast,
overall performance
has generally
been
improving during the last six months of the assessment
period,
and most
,indications are that improved performance
can continue in the future, assuming
that senior management
successfully
implements
the various corrective action
programs
and initiatives laid out during this
SALP period.
Although the
SALP ratings in the functional areas of maintenance/surveillance
and engineering/technical
support both declined from SALP ratings of 2 in the
previous
SALP assessment,
.to SALP ratings of 3 this assessment
period, these
ratings actually reflect long standing
weaknesses
in these functional areas,
the magnitude of which was not fully appreciated until this year.
Specific
comments in the functional areas of concern are provided below.
891211009'6
891122
AOOCK 05000528
9.
(,/
In the functional area of engineering
and technical
support,
the Board
reconfirmed concerns that we have discussed
in several
management
meetings
.this past year.
The .lack of management
direction of your system engineers
continued to be reflected in poor performance
observed
during this
period.
Your engineering
organization
s .inability to preclude
problems
experienced with the Atmospheric
Dump Valves,. despite the existence of known
problems with their operation,
was considered
a significant weakness.
The
engineering.review of the inadvertent overpressurization
of portions of the
Unit, 2 Main Feedwater piping, which was hastily performed,
and initially
included incorrect assumptions,
was an ongoing reflection of weaknesses
in
this area.
However recent events
have
shown
a change in. approach to a more
thoughtful
and rigorous reaction to plant problems, which=is'n .indication of
progress in this area.
Although the Board recognized your initiatives for improvement in the
functional area of safety assessment
and quality verification, the Board
.c'oncluded that-your total performance for the
SALP period was still weak.
Existing past weaknesses
had not yet been corrected to the point that improved
results
were clearly visible.
Weaknesses
were still noted in your root cause
analysis
process.
For example, your root cause analysis of the
ADV and
compressed
gas
system problems did not fully determine
the cause for the
-'. problems persisting despite clearly identified precursors
to those problems.
The ability of your
gA and oversight organizations to identify and initiate
changes
to existing weak programs
was noted to be visibly lacking.
The Board's
concerns
in the function'al area of maintenance
and surveillance
resulted predominantly from weaknesses
identified by the Augmented Inspection
Team that investigated
the March 3, 1989 Unit 3 Unusual
Event,
and were
substantiated
by the Maintenance
Team inspection performed in August 1989.
Significant weaknesses
in your maintenance
and testing of atmospheric
dump
valves
(ADV) and.emergency
lighting resulted in many of the difficulties you
experienced
during the above
noted event.
Ina'dequate
procedural
compliance
by
the maintenance
organization
has contributed to other plant problems
such
as
the separation
of the Unit 1 Emergency Diesel Generator
(EGG) fuel line while
the EDG'as running and the erroneous
reassembly of an ADV nitrogen regulator
in Unit 2.
Inadequate
attention to detail in work implementation
and
inadequate
problem resolution
and work planning were also noted by the
Maintenance
Inspection
Team.
A management
summary of this assessment
is provided in Section II of 'the
enclosed report.
Perceived strengths
and weaknesses
and Board recommendations
are discussed
in Section IV, Performance
Analysis.
You are requested
to provide to this office, within 30 days of the management
meetihg,
a written response
which addresses
the three functional areas
assessed
by the
SALP Board as Category
3.
This response
should describe
actions which you have taken or plan to take to provide improved performance
in these functional areas.
Actions described
in previous
correspondence
may
be included by reference if appropriate.
Your response
may also include
comments
on or amplification of the
SALP report in other areas,
as
appropriate.'n
accordance
with Section 2.790 of the'NRC's
"Rules of Practice," Part 2,
Title 10,
Code of Federal
Regulations,
a copy of this letter, the enclosed
SALP report,
and your response will be placed in the NRC's Public Document
Room.
The NRC's Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational
Data performed
an
assessment
of licensee
event reports submitted for Palo Verde.
,This
assessment
was provided as
an input to the
SALP process;
a copy is, therefore,
provided as Attachment
1 to the enclosed report.
The response
requested
by this letter is not subject to'he clearance
procedures
of the Office of Hanagement
and Budget as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980,
PL 96-511.
Should you have any questions
concerni
e
eport,
we will be pleased
to discuss
them with you.
Sincere
. Hartin
Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
SALP Report
No. 50-528/89-48,
529/89-48,
530/89-48
Attachment
1 Enclosed in SALP Report
cc w/enclosures
(1} and (2):
J.
E. Levine, Vice President,
Nuclear Production
M. F. guinn, Director, Nuclear Safety and Licensing
B.
E. Ballard, Director, guality Assurance
State of Arizona
SOV 22
1989
bcc w/enclosures:
Project Inspector
.Resident
Inspector
docket file
G.
Cook
B. Faulkenberry
J. Martin
Commissioners
T. Murley, Director,
B. Clayton,
OEDO
B. Zimmerman
bcc w/o enclosures:
J. Zollicoffer
M. Smith
N. Western
REGION V
'Ana/dot
11/~98
SRichards
u./2V89
AChaffee
ll/>y'89
RSca
o
ll/gI/89
g4-Y~~<~
GKniqhton,
ll/K/89
YE
/
NO
immerman
11/&I/89
- 6(
ar
1/
/
NO
ES /
NO
/
NO
ES /
NO
]
ES /
NO
7
YES /
NO
ES /
NO
3
NDV-,R 2
398S
bcc w/encl osur es:-
Project Inspector
Resident
Inspector
docket file
G.
Cook
B; Faulkenberry
J. Martin
Commissioners
T. Murley, Director,
B. Clayton,
OEDO
B.
Zimmerman
bcc w/o enclosures:
J. 2ollicoffer
M. Smith
N. Western
REGION V
WAng/dot
SRi chards
'1/>98
11~89
AChaffee
11/>y'89
RSca
o
11/g I/89
giP.Y ~)<~
GKniqhton,
11/K/89
CO
T
0
YE
/
NO
Y
/
NO
smmerman
ar
11/&I/89
1/,
9
O,t
ES /
NO
j YES /
NO
]
0
ES /
NO
S
.C
/
NO
]
ES /
NO
]
ES /
NO.
j