ML17305B151

Responds to NRC 900926 Ltr Re Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-528/90-36,50-529/90-36 & 50-530/90-36 & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $75,000.Requests That Civil Penalty Be Mitigated

ML17305B151
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	10/25/1990
From:	CONWAY W F ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE), NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML17305B152	List: ML17305B151
References
102-01877-WFC-T, 102-1877-WFC-T, NUDOCS 9011020165
Download: ML17305B151 (10)

See also: IR 05000528/1990036

Text

ACCELERATED

DISTRIBUTION

DEMONSTI&TION

SYSTEM R EGULATORY INFORMATI'3N

DISTRIBUTION

SYSTEM (RIDS).ESSION NBR:9011020165

DOC.DATE: 90/10/25 NOTARIZED:

NO DOCKET CIL:STN-50-528

Palo Verde Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Arizona Publi 05000528 STN-50-529

Palo Verde Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Arizona Publi 05000529 STN-50-530

Palo Verde'uclear

Station, Unit 3, Arizona Publi 05000530 AUTH.NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION

CONWAYPW.F.

Arizona Public Service Co.(formerly Arizona Nuclear Power RECIP.NAME

RECIPIENT AFFILIATION

Document Control Branch (Document Control Desk)SUBJECT: Responds to NRC 900926 ltr re violations

noted in Insp Repts 50-528/90-36,50-529/90-36

6 50-530/90-36.Corrective

actions: DISTRIBUTION

CODE: IE14D COPIES RECEIVED:LTR

1 ENCL I SIZE: TITLE: Enforcement

Action Non-2.790-Licensee

Response NOTES:STANDARDIZED

PLANT Standardized

plant.Standardized

plant.05000528 05000529 05000530 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD5 LA PETERSON,S.

TERNAL: AEOD/DOA DEDRO NRR/PMAS/ILRB12

~I'%EG F 02 RGN2 DRSS/EPRPB

EXTERNAL: NRC PDR NOTES: COPIES LTTR ENCL 1 1 1 1 1'1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD5 PD TRAMMELLPC

~AEOD/DSP/TPAB

NRR/DOEA/OEAB11

NUDOCS-ABSTRACT

OE FILE 01 RGN5 FILE 03 NSIC COPIES LTTR ENCL 1'1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NOTE TO ALL"RIDS" RECIPIENTS:

PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASTE!CONTACT THE DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK, ROOM Pl-37 (EXT.20079)TO ELIMINATE YOUR NAME FROM DISHUBUTION

LISIS FOR DOCUMENTS YOU DON'T NEED!TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: LTTR 18 ENCL 18

a

~, Arizona Public Service Company P.O, BOX 53999~PHOENIX, ARI2ONA 85072-3999

WILLIAM F.CONWAY EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT NUCLEAR 102-01877-WFC/TRB

October 25, 1990 Director, Office of Enforcement

U.S.Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

Attention:

Document Control Desk Mail Station: Pl-37 Washington, DC 20555 Reference:

(1)Letter from J.B.Martin, Regional Administrator, NRC to W.F.Conway, Executive Vice President Nuclear, Arizona Public Service, dated September 26, 1990.(2)Letter from R.P.Zimmerman, Director, Division of Reactor Safety and Projects, NRC to W.F, Conway, Executive Vice President Nuclear, Arizona Public Service, dated August 23, 1990.Dear Sirs: Palo Verde Nuclear Generating

Station (PVNGS)Units 1, 2, and 3 Docket No.STN 50-528 (License No.NPF-41)Docket No.STN 50-529 (License No.NPF-51)Docket No.STN 50-530 (License No.NPF-74)Reply to Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition

of Civil Penalty-$75,000 (Inspection

Report Nos.50-528/90-36, 50-529/90-36, and 50-530/90-36)

File'0-070-026

As directed by Reference (1), Arizona Public Service Company (APS)hereby responds to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition

of Civil Penalty (Notice).A restatement

of the violations

and APS's response are provided in Appendix A and Attachment

1, respectively, to this letter.As stated in Attachment

1, APS agrees that the violations

did occur as stated in the Notice.APS appreciates

the significant

nature of these violations

and the appropriateness

of a civil penalty.However, based on the discussion

in the referenced

letter, APS believes that NRC may not have considered

all relevant facts in weighing the escalation

and mitigation

factors.APS is, therefore, providing additional

information

in this letter and requesting

that NRC reconsider

the amount of the proposed civil penalty.It is important to keep in mind that subsequent

reviews have shown that the violations

had no actual and very little potential impact on the public health and safety.The first violation involved four examples in which a licensed physician evaluated an operator's

changed medical condition and determined

that the operator was capable of performing

his functions but APS failed to~~~~90ii020i65

801025 PDR ADDCK 05000528 Q PNU

~"

NRC Document Control Desk Page 2 102-01877-WFC/TRB

October 25, 1990 report such changes in the operator's

medical conditions

to the NRC.'n each case the physician had evaluated the condition in light of the operator's

duties and imposed restrictions, as necessary, on his work activities.

There is no information

to suggest the operators failed to conduct themselves

in accordance

with those restrictions

or that the condition affected the operators'erformance.

The principal failure was that the medical department

did not recognize either the need to advise APS's licensing department

of the condition or the specific requirements

of the applicable

standard.The second violation involved 15 instances in which a licensed physician performing

physical examinations

of operators omitted one or more tests required by the applicable

standard, but an APS representative

certified that the examinations

had been performed in accordance

with that standard.In each of these cases the operator was subsequently

found to be medically qualified based on a physical examination

which completed the requirements

of the applicable

standard.As a result, although there had been some possibility

that an incapacitating

medical condition could have been overlooked

in the previous incomplete

examinations, that did not occur.The NRC should reconsider

the escalation

of the civil penalty because the NRC's consideration

of the applicable

factors appears to be based on a misunderstanding

of the actual sequence of events.The pertinent events are as follows:,~In response to suggestions

from the NRC inspector in May 1990, the APS medical department

reviewed the medical records of PVNGS licensed operators.

The review identified

a number of discrepancies, including an operator whose changed physical condition had not been reported to the NRC in accordance

with NRC requirements, a number of operators whose biennial physical exam had been outside the required two year frequency and six operators whose medical certifications

were based on physical exams that did not meet all of the applicable

requirements.

These findings were reported to NRC (LER 90-09), and the'APS Quality Assurance (QA)organization

issued a Corrective

Action Report (CAR)documenting

the deficiencies.

To assure that the potentially

significant

issues were reviewed first, APS decided to have QA review these issues in two stages.First, a QA monitoring

review was initiated to assure currently'ne of the four examples, concerning

an operator with diabetes mellitus, involved an error in a 1988 license renewal application, rather than a changed medical condition.

The individual's

initial license application

in 1986 had disclosed this medical condition, and the individual's

initial operator license in 1986 and amendment in 1987 was appropriately

conditioned.

4'

t ip NRC Document Control Desk Page 3 102-01877-WFC/TRB

October 25, 1990 licensed operators'ompliance

with the requirement

for biennial medical examinations.

Second, a more comprehensive

review of the historical

medical records would be performed during a full QA audit of the Training and Qualification

program that was already scheduled for October 1990.APS decided to retain this audit schedule so that the audit could also assess the effectiveness

of APS's programmatic

corrective

actions.~The NRC inspection

in July 1990 identified

additional

examples of the same types of problems that APS had previously

identified

and reported to the NRC.Consequently, the corrective

actions that APS took were not significantly

affected by this NRC inspection.

Indeed, APS believes that the additional

examples identified

by the NRC inspector would have been identified

in the activities

required to resolve the CAR and in the scheduled QA audit.Reference (1)appears to criticize the initial QA review for being limited and for failing to identify certain deficiencies.

Reference (1)also states that"as of the date of the enforcement

conference

a comprehensive

independent

review of this program had not been made nor had a date for such a review been determined." These observations

are not justified, since the initial QA review was intentionally

limited in scope to focus on the question of whether, within the previous two years, each of the licensed operators had received a medical examination

meeting the ANSI/ANS 3.4-1983 standard.This scope was appropriate

because it directly addressed the area of concern expressed by the NRC inspector and the area most likely to have current safety significance.

The CAR and the scheduled QA audit were specific documented

processes that constituted

a significant

portion of the APS process for'performing

a comprehensive

review of this area and for resolving the identified

concerns.Thus, a comprehensive

independent

review of this program had been scheduled (this audit is currently in progress)and its schedule documented

on the overall APS QA audit schedule.Although APS mentioned this fact at the enforcement

conference, it apparently

was not fully recognized

by the NRC staff.APS recognized

the importance

of this issue and acted promptly to implement comprehensive

programs to control, not only the operator medical examinations, but all facets of licensed operator qualification.

NRC regional management

has reviewed these programs and concluded in Reference (2)that if properly implemented, the programs appear to be appropriate

to correct the deficiencies

which APS and the NRC have identified.

tg NRC Document Control Desk Page 4 102-01877-WFC/TRB

October 25, 1990 APS respectfully

requests that based on the information

provided above, the NRC reconsider

the escalation

and mitigation

factors and reduce the amount of the civil penalty.Should you have any questions or comments relative to the Reply to the Notices of Violations, this letter, or any other matter, I would appreciate

the opportunity

to respond to them.Very truly yours, WFC/TRB/dmn

Attachment

CC: J.M.J.B.C.M.J.R.A.C.D.H.Taylor Martin Trammell Newman Gehr Coe