ML17306A180
| ML17306A180 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 09/20/1991 |
| From: | Kirsch D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Conway W ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17306A181 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-89-10, NUDOCS 9110070112 | |
| Download: ML17306A180 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000528/1991025
Text
g eS IIECy,
fp,0
Cy
~a
nO
(s g
O
+~
gO
+%*4+
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
1460 MARIALANE. SUITE 210
WALNUTCREEK, CALIFORNIA94696-6368
Docket Nos. 50-528,
529,
and
530
Arizona Public Service
Company
P. 0.
Box 53999, Sta.
9012
Phoenix, Arizona
85072-3999
Attention:
Mr. M. F.
Conway
Executive Vice President,
Nuclear
SUBJECT:
NRC INSPECTION AT PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION
This letter refers to the inspection
led by Mr. Dave Corporandy of this office
during the weeks of July 8 and July 22, 1991, of activities authorized
by NRC
License
Nos.
and NPF-74,
and to the discussion
of our findings
held with members of your staff on July 26, 1991.
Additional in-office review
of licensee
provided documents
continued through August 13,
1991.
The
inspection evaluated
the adequacy of Palo Verde actions to assure
the
reliability of motor operated
valves
(MOVs).
Our inspectors
reviewed the
program that you have developed in response
to
"Safety-Related
Notor Operated
Valve Testing
and Surveillance."
Generic Letter 89-10 provides
recommendations
for licensees
to develop
and implement
programs to ensure that
MOVs will operate properly under design basis
conditions.
Specific areas
examined during this inspection
are described in the enclosed
inspection report.
Mithin these
areas,
the inspection consisted of selective
examinations=of
procedures
and representative
records,
interviews with
personnel,
and observations
of ongoing maintenance
of MOVs.
Based
on the results of this inspection, it is clear that you are developing
an ambitious
program for your MOVs, with an
MOV group that appears
to be
staffed with knowledgeable
and dedicated
personnel.
However, the findings of
this inspection indicate the need for additional
emphasis
on more timely
assessment
of the potential generic
and programmatic implications of MOV
problems
being identified by your program activities.
In this regard,
the
inspectors identified two of your activities that appeared
to be in violation
of NRC requirements,
as
documented
in the attached
(Notice), and two other weaknesses
in your program:
a.
Potential
generic deficiencies
associated
with repeated
chattering
had not been properly evaluated
in accordance
with your
administrative
and technical
procedures.
(Violation A)
b.
Appropriate acceptance
criteria had not been established
for certain
tests to properly demonstrate
MOV capability to perform under design
basis conditions or properly validate your.MOV design methodology.
(Violation B)
9110070112
910920
ADDCK 05000528
8
-2-
c.
Valve factors
were revised for specific
MOVs which had failed design
basis tests without providing timely evaluation of generic applicability
to other
MOVs of similar design.
(Report Section 4.3)
d.
Stem friction coefficients
used in engineering calculations
assumed
stem
condi tion and 1ubri cant quali ties whi ch had not been appropri ately
incorporated into applicable preventive maintenance
procedure
verifications.
(Report Section 4.3)
These
and other inspection findings are discussed
in detail in the attached
inspection report.
In accordance
with 10 CFR 2.790(a),
a copy of this letter
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.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions
in the enclosed
Notice when preparing your response.
In your response,
you
should document the specific actions
taken
and any additional actions
you plan
to prevent recurrence.
After reviewing your
response
to the Notice, including
your proposed corrective actions
and the results of future inspections,
the
NRC will determine
whether further
NRC enforcement action is necessary
to
ensure
compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
t
The responses
directed
by this letter
and the enclosed
Notices are not
subject to the clearance
procedures
of the Office of Management
and Budget
as
required
by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980,
Pub.
L. No.96-511.
Sincerely,
D. F. Kirsch, Chief
Reactor Safety Branch
Enclosures:
l.
Appendix
2.
Inspection Report Nos. 50-528/91-25,
50-529/91-25,
50-530/91-25
cc:
Mr. W. Mark DeMichele,
Mr. James
M. Levine,
Mr. Jack
N. Bailey,
Mr. E.
C. Simpson,
Mr. Blaine E. Ballard,
Mr. Thomas
R. Bradish,
Mr. Robert
W. Page,
Mr. Arthur C. Gehr, Esq., Snell
5 Wilmer
Mr. Al Gutterman,
Newman
5 Holtzinger P.C.
Mr. James
A. Boeletto, Esq., Assistant Counsel,
SCE Company
Mr. Charles
B. Brinkman, Combustion Engineering,
Inc.
Mr. Charles Tedford, Director, Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency
Chairman,
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
Mr. Steve
M. Olea, Chief Engineer, Aiizona Corporation
Commission
Ignacio R. Troncoso,
El Paso Electric Company
Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esq., Akin, Gump, Strauss,
Hauer
and Feld
Bradley
W. Jones,
Esq., Akin, Gump, Strauss,
Hauer and Feld
cc w/enclosures:
Project Insepctor
Resident
Inspector
Docket File
P.
K.
Eapen
HRRlDET/EHER~
R. Jape,
RII
D. Danielson,
RII
T. Stetka,
RIV
G.
Cook
K. Perkins
R.
Zimmerman
B. Faulkenberry
J. Martin
bcc w/o enclosures:
M. Smith
J. Zollicoffer
J.
Bianchi
Region V/ann
CC1 ark
09/~~/91
C er:jb
09/~
,f) e,4
DCorporandy
AJohnson
F
fScarbrough
09/m/91
09j,g 91
09/8o/91
ES /
NO
]
S /
NO
] YES /
NO
] YES /
N
YE
/
NO
]
~~&Cain
+aeRHuey
09/2o/91
09/~/91
DKi sc
7/zy qy
YES /
NO
] YES /
NO
]
YES /
0
]
E
/
NO ]
Y
/
NO ]