ML20044C558
| ML20044C558 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 03/11/1993 |
| From: | Milller L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Conway W ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9303240152 | |
| Download: ML20044C558 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000528/1992036
Text
'
,
'
- puaN
.
UNITED STATES
o
,
',
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
>
3".
-
l
E
REGION V
'
%Y% ' *, * * /
1450 MARIA LANE
WALNUT CREEK, CAUFORNIA 94596-5368
g g 1 1 1993
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: RESPONSE TO ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY REPLY TO NOTICE OF
VIOLATIONS 50-528, 529, 530/92-36-01, 50-530/92-36-03, AND 50-
528/92-36-04
Gentlemen:
Thank you for your letter (102-02385-WFC/DLK) of December 31, 1992, in
_
response to our Notice of Violation and Inspection Report Nos. 50-528, 529,
530/92-36, dated December 4, 1992.
Your response to Violation A indicated all affected program and surveillance
procedures would be revised to incorporate required ASME Section XI testing by
June 30, 1993. This action will be reviewed in a future inspection.
In your response to the Notice of Violation, you denied the first example of
Violation B and stated that Arizona Public Service actions taken at the time
were appropriate because:
(1) the check valve was non-quality related,' (2)
engineering was present on the job, (3) the unacceptable conditions were
evaluated by engineering, (4) the bonnet screws do not maintain the pressure
boundary or affect the operation of the check valve, (5) the cap screws
,
normally locked in place by bending up the locking device tabs were found
torqued, and (6) the unacceptable conditions did not meet the definition of
" de fi ci enci es. "
.
Our review of your denial of the first example of Violation B has determined
the following:
(1)
While Auxiliary Feedwater pump AFN-Pol and its associated piping and
valves are non-safety related, they are required to be operable by your
technical specifications and are important to safety. Furthermore, you
have recently appropriately revised the quality classification for this
<
subsystem / check valve to quality augmented, in recognition of its
importance to safety.
(2) We were informed during the inspection that engineering evaluation and
corrective actions' were annotated on the check valve examination report.
However, this process did not provide sufficient documentation of the
evaluations, the supervisory review, the feedback for possible generic
,
consideration nor possible operability considerations. Section 8.4.2. of
r
Revision 6 of your procedures 73T1-9ZZl9, Visual Examination of Pump and
b
9303240152 930311
ADOCK 05000528
G
.
2
.
.
~
Valve Internal Surfaces, appropriately required that "An MNCR per 60AC-
.
0QQ01 or an EER per 73AC-0EE02 for non quality related items shall be
!
initiated for all items reflecting an unacceptable condition." The
r
procedure corrective action requirements were not complied with.
1
The first example of Violation B is considered to be a valid Violation and
remains as stated in the Notice of Violation enciosed in Inspection Report 50-
528, 529, 530/92-36.
Please submit your response to the Violation as stated
in that Notice.
l
You denied the second example of Violation B and provided additional
I
information to support your denial. We will review the information regarding
the snubber sizing during a followup inspection for this violation.
i
You denied Violation C.
Your response stated that check valve 1PSGE-V003 was
!
not required to be examined in accordance with ASME Section XI. You stated
'
that rigging the valve disc out to facilitate a complete valve. internal
!
inspection was not warranted based on satisfactory results from internal
examinations previously performed on three check valves in the "same service"
and based on the requirement to reverse flow test the check valve following
'
the inspection. You therefore concluded that your check valve inspection
procedure was complied with during the visual examination of IPSGE-V003. We
[
have reviewed the reasons for your denial and concur. Violation C is
I
withdrawn.
,
Your cooperation with us is appreciated.
Should you have any further
questions regarding this issue, please contact W. P. Ang (510 - 975-0310).
i
Sincerely,
i
i
h-
y [v,
L. F. Miller, Jr., Chief
Reactor Safety Branch
,
l
t
f
!
!
+
'l
<
i
..
3
-.
o
.
h
cc w/ enclosure:
Mr. O. Mark DeMichele, APS
,
Mr. James M.-Levine, APS
Mr. R. Stevens, APS
Mr. E. C. Simpson, APS
Mr. S. Guthrie, APS
Mr. Thomas R. Bradish, APS
Mr. Robert W. Page, APS
Ms. Nancy C. Loftin, Esq., APS
,
Mr. Al Gutterman, Newman & Holtzinger P.C.
Mr. James A. Beoletto, Esq., Assistant Counsel, SCE Company
Mr.- Charles B. Brinkman, Combustion Engineering. .Inc.
Mr. Aubrey V. Godwin, Director, Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency
-
Chairman, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
Mr. Steve M. Olea, Chief Engineer, Arizo'.in Corporation Commission
Mr. Curtis Hoskins, El Paso Electric Cor>pany
-
Roy P. Lessey, Jr., Esq., Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer and Feld
!
Bradley W. Jones, Esq., Akin, Gump, Sti auss, iiauer and Feld
l
Mr. Jack R. Newman, Esq. (Newman & Holtzinger)
-
i
i
.
r
l
.
i
l
t
F
!
j
.
f
_
i
l
l
A
-
O
!
bec w/ enclosure:
Project Inspector
Resident Inspector
'
Docket File
.
G. Cook
'
B. Faulkenberry
J. Martin
bec w/o enclosure:
M. Smith
J. Zollicoffer
J. Bianchi
gyfh'b
(j)fk
,p y
yf" h
CClark
Wang
RHuey
HWong
LMiller
0
03// /93
03//D/93
03/'g/93
03/j,/93
03/ /r /93
f
~RptttST COPY
l REQi(ST COPY
REQUE)ST COPY
REQUEST COPY
REQUEST COPY ]
~ f YES / NO
l ,YlS)/ NO
/)fES / NO
MES!/ NO
- fh/ N0
l
'
'
'
'
h/
!V
V
U
"
7
'
r
%
SEND TO DCS
--
/ NO
SEND TO PDR '
j / NO
-!
!
l
4
i
Tiol
.)