ML17312A553

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Notice of Violation from Insp on 951217-960127.Violations Noted:On 951220,inspector Informed Licensee of Condition Adverse to Quality in That Unit 3 Train B Essential Chiller Refrigerant Level Above Max Operability Limit
ML17312A553
Person / Time
Site: Palo Verde  Arizona Public Service icon.png
Issue date: 01/23/1996
From:
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML17312A552 List:
References
50-528-95-25, 50-529-95-25, 50-530-95-25, NUDOCS 9602260379
Download: ML17312A553 (6)


Text

ENCLOSURE 1

NOTICE OF VIOLATION Arizona Public Service Company Dockets:

50-528 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station 50-529 50-530 Licenses:

NPF-41 NPF-51 NPF-74 During an NRC inspection conducted on Oecember 17,

1995, through January 27,
1996, three violations of NRC requirements were identified.

In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions" (60 FR 34381; June 30, 1995),

the violations are listed below:

A.

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, requires, in part, that measures shall be established to assure that conditions adverse to

quality, such as failures, deficiencies, and deviations, are promptly identified and corrected.

Licensee Procedure 90AC-OIP04, "Condition Reporting," Revision 7, implements this requirement and requires that adverse conditions be identified and clearly documented in a condition report/disposition request.

Licensee routine Preventative Task Number 047689, Step 4.4, required that maintenance personnel verify that the Unit 3 Train B essential chilled water chiller have a refrigerant level below a maximum operability limit of 7 inches.

Contrary to the above, on Oecember 20,

1995, the inspector informed the licensee of a condition adverse to quality in that the Unit 3 Train B

essential chiller refricarant level was above the maximum operability limit, and a condition report/disposition request was not initiated.

This is a Severity Level IV violation (530/9525-01)

(Supplement I).

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion Y, requires, in part, that activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by, and implemented in accordance with, documented procedures.

Licensee Procedure 400P-90P26, Revision 3, "Operability Determination,"

establishes the methods for documenting the basis and justification of operability decisions'ppendix C of this procedure provides requirements for taking credit for the use of manual operation in order to maintain a degraded automatic system operable.

Step

2. 1 of Appendix C lists the actions which must be performed in order to take credit for manual operation and includes evaluations of the qualifications and ability of the personnel performing the actions, the number of qualified personnel
needed, the time needed to accomplish the actions, the communications necessary, and the criteria of 10 CFR 50.59.

9602260379 960223 PDR ADOCK 05000528 6

PDR

I l

I

O.

C.

Contrary to the above, from November 27 to December 4,

1995, the licensee took credit for the use of manual operation to maintain a

degraded automatic

system, the Unit 3 Train A essential
chiller, operable without the evaluations required by Appendix, C being performed.

This is a Severity Level IV violation (530/9525-02)

(Supplement I).

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI, "Test Control," requires that a test program shall be established to assure that all testing required to demonstrate, that structures,

systems, and c'omponents will perform satisfactorily in service is identified and performed in accordance with written test procedures which incorporate the requirements and acceptance limits contained in applicable design documents.

Licensee essential chilled water system hydraulic Calculation 13-MC-EC-200, Revision 0, dated February 18,

1994, Section 5.4, stated that the allowable leakage from each train of the essential chilled water system was 9 gallons per day.

Contrary to the above, as of January 24,

1996, the licensee had not established testing required to demonstrate that the essential chilled water system could perform satisfactorily in service, in that they had not identified and performed written test procedures which incorporated the requirements and acceptance limits for the allowable leakage from each train of the essential chilled water system.

This is a Severity Level IV violation (528/9525-03)

(Supplement I).

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2 '01, Arizona Public Service Company is hereby required to submit a written statement

".r explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN:

Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C.

20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region IV, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, Texas

76011, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at the facility that is the subject of this Notice, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice).

This reply should be clearly marked as a "Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each violation:

(1) the reason for the violation or, if contested, the basis for disputing the violation, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results

achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved.

Your response may reference or include previous docketed correspondence, if the correspondence adequately addresses the required response.

If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order or a

Demand for Information may be issued as to why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked, or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken.

Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.

t Because the response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), to the extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy, proprietary,

1

or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction.

However, if it is necessary to include such information, it should clearly indicate the specific information that should not be placed in the PDR and provide the legal basis to support the request for withholding the information from the public.

Dated at Arlington Texas this/)~today of~a~

1996

i I

I e

f