ML17305B435
| ML17305B435 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 03/29/1991 |
| From: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Conway W ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17305B436 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9104090040 | |
| Download: ML17305B435 (9) | |
See also: IR 05000528/1990053
Text
ggS REC(p
P0
Op
<
Docket Nos. 50-528, 50-529 and 50-530 Arizona Public Service Company P. 0. Box 53999, Station 9012 Phoenix, Arizona 85072-3999 Attention: Mr. W. F. Conway Executive Vice President, Nuclear Gentlemen: SUBJECT: SYSTEMATIC .ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE FINAl. SPURT This refers to the NRC's Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) Board Report Nn 5D-SZZ., 50;529, 50-530/90-53, dated January 31, 1991, for your Palo Verde 'Nuclear 'Generating Station and to the written comments provided in your March 21, 1991 letter in response to the SALP Board's report. We have reviewed your March 21, 1991 response and have concluded that your response was appropri.ate. Your March 21, 1991 response identified four items for clarification of the Initial SALP Report. For these items we have concluded that: (1) the clarifications did not affect the SALP Board's conclusions; (2) for three items related to emergency operating procedures, operator exam'en procedures, and the date of a reactor trip event, minor corrections to the Initial SALP Report are considered appropriate and are reflected in the enclosed Final SALP Report; (3) for one item related to radiation protection decTIs1Ien TIIaking, we conclude that no change to the Initial SALP Report is necessary. NRC conclusions are presented in Enclosure 1 to this letter. As discussed during our February 13, 1991 management meeting, the task ahead for APS is to maintain the momentum which has resulted in considerable improvement at Palo Verde and to successfully implement your improvement programs. As stated in the SALP report, we conclude that the areas ef,Nainten~;.ce, Engineering, and guality Assurance are in particular need o'f Ma'I-i'Iunal management attention. In accordance with 30 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosures vill be placed ic +ice 'NRC !Public Document Room. Should you have any questions concerning this letter, the enclosures, or the SALP Board's rep~ ee will be pleased to discuss them with you. Sincerely, Regional Adminis ator 9104090040 9i0329 PDR ADO'5000528 Q MAR 2 9 1991 Enclosures: 1. NRC Conclusions 2. SALP Board Report Revision Sheet 3. SALP Heeting Report No. 50-528, 50-529, 50-530/91-10 4. APS Response to Initial SAL'P Report, dated Harch 21, 1991 5. Final SALP Report cc w/enclosures: Hr. 0. Hark De Michele, APS Hr. James M. Levine, APS ter. Jack N. Bailey, APS Hr. E. C. Simpson, APS Hr. B. E. Ballard, APS Hr. Thomas R. Bradish, APS Hr. Robert W. Page, APS Hr. Arthur C. Gehr, Esq., Snell Y 'Wilmer Hr. Al Gutterman, Newman E Holtzinger P. C. .Mr. Charles R. Kocher, Esq., Assistant Council, SCE Company i"".!-.. James A. Boelett;-, F. q....-.ssiNm~ Cmmcil, SCE Company 'Hr,. Charles B. Brinkman, Combustion 'Eng'ineering, Inc. Hr. Charles Tedford, Director, Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency Chairman, Haricopa County Board of Supervisors Hr. John W. Norman, Arizona Corporation Commission Hr. Steve H. Olea, Arizona Corporation Commission Hr. Ignacio R. Troncoso, El Paso Electric Company Hr. Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esq., Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer and Feld Hr. Bradley W. Jones, Esq., Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer and Feld t IC I ( A 4 -3- MAR 2 0 1991 bcc w/enclosures: Project Inspector Resident Inspector docket file G. Cook ~ B. Faulkenberry J. Hartin Commissioners T. Hurley, NRR J. Caldwell, OEDO J. Lieberman, OE J. Dyer, NRR C. Trammell, NRR K. Thompson, NRR 'C. Holden, NRR R. Wharton, NRR INPO bcc w/o enclosures: J. Zollicoffer N. Smith N. Western A. Wieder REGION V NWong 03/93/91 SRichards 03/Pl/91 DKirs h KPerky RScar no 03/ 91 03@g/91 03/Pf/91 EST COPY REQUEST Y ] EST Y REQUES ] Q T COPY ES NO YES NO ES YES NO ES NO g.PS RZimrherman JMa in 03~/91 03/P/91 REQUEST COPY ] QU ST COPY YES NO YES NO TO PDR ES NO t1 f l l Enclosure 1 NRC CONCLUSIONS A. Comments Received from Licensee II Arizona Public Service Company's (APS) March 21, 1991 response to the Palo Verde SALP Report presented no significant objections to the content of the report. The APS response provided clarification to four items discussed in the Initial SALP Report. The clarifications involved: (1) a statement regarding a delay in the Emergency Operating Procedures rewrite program due to delays in obtaining a writer's guide, when actually the writer's guide problem affected the Abnormal Operating Procedure upgrade program; (2) the implications of a statement regarding procedures allowing an operator who has failed a test to return to shift +or'k prior to passing a second test, when no operator was actually returned to work under these circumstances; (3) a statement that there was an inadequate review of activities prior to implementation in the r'adiation protection area and an APS acknowledgement that there was inadequate supervision of junior radiation protection technicians in some cases; and (4) the date of a Unit 3 reactor trip actually being October 20, 1990 vice October 10, 1990 as stated in the Initial SALP Report. Changes to the SALP Report have been made for Items 1, 2, and 4 (see enclosed Final SALP Report). With regard to Item 1, the, statement addressing the reason for the EOP rewrite program delay has been. clarified; however, the comment of a delay having occurred is still considered valid. No changes are considered necessary for Item 3 in that the NRC and licensee are both in agreement with the concern Mentified in the SALP Report related to the decision making process for junior radiation protection technicians'ob assignments. The licensee's clarifications did not affect the conclusions or ratings of the .SALP Board. B. NRC Conclusions Re ardin Acce tabilit of Licensee's Planned Corrective Actions We conclude that while your proposed actions to address areas needing improvement are general in nature, the actions stated are responsive. We will review your actions as part of our future inspection program, as " appropri ate. C. Re ional Administrator's Conclusions Based on Consideration of Licensee's Res onse I have concluded that the overall rating in the affected areas have not changed. Enclosure 2 SALP BOARD REPORT REVISION SHEET PAGE LINE NOW READS SHOULD READ 45-48 The Emergency Operating Procedures rewrite program has been delayed by another year due to delays by contractors providing the writeruide. This is the second significant delay to this program. The completion of the Emergency Operating Procedure (EOP) rewrite program experienced some delay due to 1) the licensee not fully recognizing the scope of rewrite effort needed follow- ing the findings of the EOP team inspec- tion, and 2) the impact of the simulator upgrade project on the EOP training and valida- tion process. Basis: The reason for the delay in the licensee's Emergency Operating Procedure rewrite program during the SALP period is more accurately described in, the revision to the Initial SALP Report. 6 13 tests allowed an operator tests could have allowed an operator Basis: The added words clarify that while procedures could have allowed the situation to occur, no operator who had failed a test was actually returned to duties before being retested. 23 34-35 A reactor trip occurred on October 10, 1990 A reactor trip occurred on October 20,1990 Basis: The correct date for the Unit 3 reactor trip is October 20, 1990. I iJ t I I I I