ML20057E730
| ML20057E730 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 09/16/1993 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20057E724 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-528-93-35, 50-529-93-35, 50-530-93-35, NUDOCS 9310130096 | |
| Download: ML20057E730 (2) | |
Text
i NOTICE OF VIOLATION Arizona Public Service Co.
Docket Nos. 50-528, 50-529, and 50-530 Palo Verde Units 1, 2, and 3 License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74 During an NRC inspection conducted on July 13, through August 16, 1993, two violations of NRC requirements were identified.
In accordance with the
" General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2 Appendix C, the violations are listed below:
A.
Unit 2 Technical Specification 6.5.3.4 f requires that the Offsite Safety Review Committee (formerly the Nuclear Safety Group) review significant operating abnormalities or deviations from normal and expected performance of unit equipment that affect nuclear safety.
Contrary to the above, as of March 14, 1993, the Offsite Safety Review Committee / Nuclear Safety Group had not reviewed abnormal crack growth rates in certain tubes in Unit 2 Steam Generator 22 and the identification of a mid-span crack in another tube also in Steam Generator 22 (location R117/C54), which were significant abnormalities from normal and expected performance. The cracks had been identified in the third refueling outage (1991) up to 80% through-wall which had not been detected in the previous refueling outage.
In addition, one axial crack was found to be in the free span area between a horizontal support and a diagonal suppsrt and had grown from being undetectable to 75%
through-wall in one operating cycle.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I) applicable to Unit 2.
B.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, requires that activities affecting quality be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings, of a type appropriate to the circumstances.
Contrary to the above, as of March 14, 1993, emergency operating procedures used to identify and mitigate a steam generator tube rupture in Unit 2 were inadequate, in thatt (1)
For event diagnosis, the diagnostic logic tree of Emergency Procedure 42EP-2E001 relied only on radiation monitors that were actually in alarm at that time, rather than considering radiation monitor trends or alarms received previously.
(2)
The alert and alarm setpoints for the condenser exhaust and main steam line radiation monitors were based on offsite release limits, rather than being based on identification of a steam generator tube rupture event.
(3)
The portion of Functional Recovery Procedure 42EP-2R008 for mitigation of a steam generator tube rupture event was based on evaluation of alarms at the point in time that the step was being performed, rather than being continuously applicable, preventing 9310130096 930916 PDR ADOCK 05000528 G
2 performance of the appropriate guidance in the Functional Recovery Procedure.
J (4)
Functional Recovery Procedure 42EP-2R008 did not provide guidance on the amount of time to allow the steam generator blowdown radiation 1
monitor to respond after steam generator blowdown was restored.
J (5)
Functional Recovery Procedure 42EP-2R008, Appendix FQ-(Pressure and InventoryControl),.whichcouldbeenteredduringcertainsteam generator tube rupture events, did~ not establish actions for reactor coolant system depressurization.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I) applicable to Unit 2.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Arizona Public Service Company is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk,. Washington, D.C.
20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region V, 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 violation A:
(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.
If an adequate reply.is not received within the time specified in this Notice, the Commission may issue an order or a demand for information as to why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked, or why such other action as may be
) roper should not be taken. Where good cause is shown, consideration will se given to extending the response time.
Dated at Walnut Creek, California this Mday of WJ V,1993
,