ML20056C843
| 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: |
| References | |
| EA-93-119, NUDOCS 9307260010 | |
| Download: ML20056C843 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000528/1993028
Text
'
4
[
%
UNITED STATES
y '"
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
n.
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
i
steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) event, as described-in Inspection Report
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
G
PDR,
.
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
!
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
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
l
License Nes. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-/4
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
/2
Rg/NO
,
'
YE f
PQuallt
RPate
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
enslawskipd YES <
NO
ES NO
YE /NO
RS arano
y///93
f///93
5
. . .-
- - - - - - - - - - - - -