ML20056C843

Forwards Enforcement Conference Repts 50-528/93-28, 50-529/93-28 & 50-530/93-28 on 930426-30 & 0511-14 & Notice of Violations

ML20056C843
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	07/01/1993
From:	Scarano R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:	Conway W ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR
Shared Package
ML20056C844	List: IR 05000528/1993028 ML20056C843 ML20056C845
References
EA-93-119, NUDOCS 9307260010
Download: ML20056C843 (4)

See also: IR 05000528/1993028

Text

'

4

[

y '"

%

~

n.

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

gs ,i REGION V

~

/ 1450 MARIA LANE

WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596-5368

JUL ~ 1 1993

Docket Nos. 50-528, 50-529, and 50-530

License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74

EA 93-119

Arizona Public Service Company

P. O. Box 53999 Sta. 9082

Phoenix, Arizona 85072-3999 ,

Attention: Mr. William F. Conway

Executive Vice President, Nuclear -

SUBJECT: ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE SUMMARY AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION

(NRC INSPECTION REPORT Nos. 50-529/93-28)

This letter refers to the inspection of Palo Verde Nuclear Generation Station

conducted April 26-30 and May 11-14, 1993. Our inspection identified several

apparent violations of NRC requirements, associated with a March 14, 1993

steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) event, as described-in Inspection Report i

50-529/93-22, provided to you on May 28, 1993. These apparent violations and

your subsequent corrective actions were the topic of an enforcement conference i

held at the Region V office on June 3, 1993. Enforcement Conference Report

50-529/93-28, and copies of the handout and slides presented by your staff

during the conference are enclosed.

During the enforcement conference, we discussed the five apparent violations

described in Inspection Report 93-22: (1) failure to classify the SGTR event

in accordance with your procedures; (2) failure to accomplish accountability

within thirty minutes, as required by your personnel assembly and

accountability procedures; (3) failure of your security force to . check

buildings in the Owner Controlled Area, as required by your personnel assembly

and accountability procedures; (4) late activation of the Emergency Response

Data System (ERDS); and (5) three examples of inadequate incorporation of ,

Emergency Plan requirements into implementing procedures for personnel

assembly and accountability.

J

You stated that the facts associated with the event were correctly presented 1

in Inspection Report 93-22, and you agreed wit.t the violations, with two i

exceptions. In particular, you did not agree with two of the examples of the L)

violation concerning Emergency Plan implementation. First, you stated that a

table in Appendix B of Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure (EPIP-20)

specifies that assembly'of persons outside of the Protected Area (PA) be .

. accomplished "as soon as practical," although you conceded that the specific j

time limit (60 minutes) given in the Emergency Plan is not included in this i

i

table. -We acknowledge your comment, and have decided to delete this example

from the violation. Second, you stated that EPIPs 11 and 12 contained the

9307260010 930701

=PDR ADOCK 05000528- i

PDR,

'

G .

I

< .

mm ,

.

l

-

.

.  ;

.

2

requirement stated in the Emergency Plan to send a search and rescue team to

locate unaccounted personnel. You indicated that, in practice, the security  :

force or other methods may be used to locate unaccounted personnel prior to

dispatching your search and rescue team. You also noted .that the search and

rescue team is available for use in the Operations Support Center (OSC), if ,

needed during an emergency. We agree that your current practices implement

the intent of the Emergency Plan to locate and protect onsite staff, even

though your plan clearly states that "If there are station personnel who-are  ;

unaccounted for, a search and rescue team is deployed." When we talked with -

Mr. Bieling of your staff on June 10 and 11, 1993, he ~ acknowle,'ged the need .to

revise the plan -to more clearly reflect current practices. Accordingly, we~ i

i

have decided to delete this example from the violation as well, and we will

make this issue an open item which we will review during a future inspection. y

Based on our review of these matters, we are issuing the enclosed Notice of'

Violation (Notice), citing the following specific violations: 1) failure to-

classify the March 14, 1993 SGTR event in accordance with your emergency

classification procedure; 2) failure to account for non-emergency personnel ,

within 30 minutes, as required by your assembly and accountability procedures; '

3) f ailure to conduct a check of the buildings in the Owner Controlled Area,

as required by your assembly and accountability _ procedures; and 4) failure to

implement an Emergency Plan requirement prohibiting admission of nonessential

personnel to the plant Protected Area (PA), following the initiation of .

j

personnel assembly and accountability procedures. The failure to activate the  !

Emergency Response Data System (ERDS) is not being cited, in accordance with -

Section VII.B of the Enforcement Policy, since you identified the violation  ;

and took prompt corrective action to preclude recurrence of this problem. i

The Enforcement Policy calls for a Severity Level II violation for failure to i

properly classify a Site Area Emergency in accordance with a licensee's  !

Emergency Plan. Since you have subsequently determined that EPIP-02 was ,

overly conservative in classifying a SGTR event as a Site Area Emergency, and ,

in fact, the event should have been classified as an Alert,-as was done during- r

the March 14 event, we have determined that escalated enforcement action is '

not warranted for this violation. However, we are citing this as a Severity-

Level IV violation, since your procedure was violated and, at the time of the,  ;

event, you had not yet determined that a Site Area Emergency was an

inappropriate classification. l

Also, we considered categorizing your failure to comply with personnel  !

assembly and accountability procedures as a Severity Level III problem due to  !

your poor performance in this area. Our concern was heightened because

problems in this area had been identified during previous NRC inspections and

by your most recent quality assurance audit. However, because the actual -i

event did not require implementation of personnel assembly or accountability, i

because you have devoted significant management attention to this matter,.andL  !

because your corrective actions appear to have been effective, we have decided. l

to issue Severity Level .IV violations for these deficiencies. Recurrence of- '

similar violations may result in escalated enforcement action.

i

You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions-

specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your

-i

,

B

!

.

a

.

3

response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional

actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this

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.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of

this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject

to the clearanca +rocedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No.96-511.  ;

Sincerely,

g'j

Ross A. Scarano, Director

Division of Radiation Safety

and Safeguards

Enclosure:

NRC Enforcement Conference Report 50-529/93-28

Notice of Violation

CC* ,

Mr. Steve Olea, Arizona Corporation Commission

James A. Beoletto, Esq., Southern California Edison Company

Mr. Charles B. Brinkman, Manager, Washington Nuclear Operations

Mr. Aubrey Godwin, Director, Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency

Chairman, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors

Jack R. Newman, Esq., Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.

Mr. Curtis Hoskins, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer,

Palo Verde Services

Roy P. Lessey, Jr., Esq., Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer and Feld

Bradley W. Jones, Esq., Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer and Feld

Thomas R. Bradish, Manager, Nuclear Regulatory Affairs, APS

Mr, H. Bieling, APS  ;

Mr. J. Dominguez, FEMA, Region IX

i

- - . _ . - - _

,l

_ _ _ _ - _

5

Docket Nos. 50-528, 50-529, AND 50-510 l

License Nes. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-/4 l

EA 93-119 )

bcc w/ enclosures:

Docket File

Resident Inspector

Project Inspector

G. Cook

B. Faulkenberry

J. Lieberman, Office of Enforcement

bcc w/o enclosures:

M. Smith

J. Zollicoffer

EST CWY , UEST COPY EST COPY R UES COPY

- /N0f/AR Y /NO Rg/NO

'

YE f

PQuallt RPate

/2 R uey MB .e

6/J,(/93 6/fv/93 6g/93 6 /

3

QiEST COPY REQU '0PY S ND TO PDR S JD TO DCS

YE /NO NO ES NO

enslawskipd YES <

RS arano

y///93 f///93

5

. . .- - - - - - - - - - - - - -