ML17310A713
| ML17310A713 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 10/01/1993 |
| From: | Faulkenberry B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Conway W ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9310260287 | |
| Download: ML17310A713 (12) | |
Text
~<cup UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION REGION V lA 1450 MARIALANE WALNUTCREEK, CAUFORNIA94596-5368 i Docket Nos.
50-528, 50-529, and 50-530 License Nos.
NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74 Arizona Public Service Company P.O.
Box 53999, Station 9082
- Phoenix, Arizona 85072-3999 Attention:
Mr.
W. F.
Conway Executive Vice President, Nuclear
Subject:
Final Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) Report Thank you for your letter of September 9,
- 1993, informing us of your plans to improve performance in response to our initial Systematic Assessment of Licensee, Performance (SALP) report, dated July 21,
- 1993, and our discussion with you during the management meeting on August 5,
- 1993, documented in Meeting Report No. 50-528/529/530/93-41.
We note that you have taken or planned action to address the three principle concerns identified in the report.
We also note that you provided a response to our recommendations for each of the functional areas that were assessed.
At the end of the SALP assessment period, you were implementing new programs to improve performance, and we look forward to observing future benefits as these programs take effect.
Your letter provided comments on our assessment of the implementation of a program to use security officers as roving fire watches.
We believe that the conclusions presented in the SALP report regarding the implementation of this program were
- valid, and our overall assessment of the functional areas remains unchanged.
Additional comments are presented in Enclosure 1 to this letter.
Your letter also provided corrections to the SALP report, and we have made the appropriate changes to pages ll and 12 of the report (Final SALP Report, ).
These changes did not affect the SALP Board's conclusions for the associated functional area.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a),
a copy of this letter and the enclosures wi.ll be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions regarding this letter, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.
Sincerely, Regional Admi istrator
Enclosures:
1.
NRC Conclusions 2.
SALP Meeting Report No. 50-528/529/530/93-41 3.
Licensee
Response
to SALP Report dated September 9,
1993 4.
Final SALP Report 93i0260287 '93i00i PDR ADOCK 05000528 8
cc w/enclosures:
Hr. Steve Olea, Arizona Corporation Commission Hr. James A. Beoletto, Esq.,
Southern California Edison Company Hr. Charles B. 'Brinkman,
- Manager, Washington Nuclear Operations Hr. Aubrey.Godwin, Director, Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency (ARRA)
- Chairman, Haricopa County Board of Supervisors Hr. Jack R.
- Newman, Esq.,
Newman 5 Holtzinger P.
C.
Hr. Curtis L. Hoskins, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Palo Verde Services Mr. Roy P.
Lessey, Jr.,
Esq., Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer and Feld Hr. Bradley W. Jones, Esq.,
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer and Feld Mr. Ronald J.
- Stevens, Director, Regulatory and Industrial Affairs, APS
bcc w/enclosure:
The Chairma'n Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Remick Commissioner, de Planque J. Taylor, EDO J. Sniezek; EDO T. Murley; NRR J. Partlow, NRR J.
Lieberman, OE E. Adensam, NRR T. quay, NRR C. Holden, NRR B. Faulkenberry G.
Cook SALP Board Members Project Inspector Resident Inspector SALP File, RV DCS PDR LPDR bcc w/o enclosure:
LFMB Maurine Smith REGION V BOlson' q /s~/93 tlPong q /Z~ /93 CVanD n urgh g/y/93 SRi chards g /+/93 KPerkins Qf//
/Q
[ 9g S
CO ES NO 0
S CO ES NO YES NO S
CO YES NO S
C YES NO RScaran
)g/ (/93 BFaulkenberry p/S /93 S
S YES NO YES NO YES NO 250108
I I
I f
ENCLOSURE 1
NRC CONCLUSIONS
NRC CONCLUSIONS A.
Comments Received from the Licensee
~')
Arizona Public Service Company's (APS) September 9,
- 1993, response to the Palo Verde SALP report provided clarifications and corrections to the content of the report.
The APS response identified two corrections which were incorporated into the final report.
The APS response also provided comments related to the NRC's assessment of the implementation of a program to use
'ecurity officers as roving fire watches.
The SALP report indicated that security officers believed that the program was implemented prior to their having a clear understanding of their duties, and the report indicated that the program initially did not have a contingency plan to cover fire tour requirements when an officer had to.respond to security alarms.
The licensee stated that security officers were provided the same training that had been previously provided to fire watch personnel as well's additional training and drills.
APS also stated that drills had been performed prior to implementation of the program, and the purposes of the drills were to evaluate security/fire watch performance during contingency events.
APS indicated that no fire watch tours had been missed.
B.
RC Re 1
to the Licensee's Comments Based on direct observations of fire watch tours during the first few days following the assumption of these responsibilities by the Hain Security
- Force, we determined that not all tours were performed to the expectations of APS management.
The observed deficiencies appeared to be due to inconsistencies in expectations of security supervisory personnel involved in training the fire watch personnel, including those who shadowed fire watches to confirm their capabilities.
In some cases, we noted that officers were not confident in performing the fire watch tours until additional practice was completed.
This additional practice was not part of the training program.
In addition, during our observation of fire watch tours, we noted that some tours were completed without entering rooms (only a visual observation of the check point plaque from the doorway).
This practice was not in accordance with your procedures and was considered to be a non-cited violation.
Further, your guality Audits and Monitoring department noted, that fire watches were not checking fire panels as required by procedures, apparently due to conflicting directions from supervisors.
This was also considered to be a non-cited violation.
Details of our observations were documented in NRC Inspection Report 50/528/529/530/92-43.
While security management appeared to believe that contingency resources were in place to respond to security alarms, we found that some security officers did not know whether the security or fire watch responsibilities had priority.
Me note that APS temporarily augmented on-shift security resources after we expressed concern in this area.
Our observations since the final implementation of the program indicate that officers are now more familiar with the fire watch tours, and with management expectations regarding tour performance.
C.
NRC Conclusions Re ardin Acce tabilit of the Licensee's Planned Corrective Actions We concluded that your proposed actions to address aII'eas needing improvement were responsive.
We will review your progress as part of our future inspection
- program, as appropriate.
D.
Re ional Administrator's Conclusions Based on Consideration of the Licensee's
~Res onse I have concluded that the overall ratings in the affected areas have not changed.
SALP BOARD REPORT REVISION SHEET PAGE LINE 11 11 NOW READS:
April 1992 SHOULD READ:
May 1992 Basis:
The event referred to, a loss of Unit 3 annunciators, occurred in May 1992 rather than April 1992.
PAGE 12 NOW READS:
LINE 16 April 1992 SHOULD READ:
May 1992 Basis:
The event referred to, a loss of Unit 3 annunciators, occurred in May 1992 rather than April 1992.
jl l
t I
l I
ENCLOSURE 2 SALP MEETING REPORT NO. 50-528/529/530/93-41
(l
<j f)
)I