ML17304A839: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 14: Line 14:
| page count = 34
| page count = 34
}}
}}
See also: [[see also::IR 05000528/1988040]]


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:'pi DONAI.O B.KARNER EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT PiFQJQI(gr Arizona Nuclear Power Project P.O.BOX 52034~PHOENIX.ARIZONA I5072-%34~0 (.l.f t 102-01069-DBK/TDS7kf!
{{#Wiki_filter:'pi DONAI.O B.KARNER EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT PiFQJQI(
kC December 19, 1988 U.S.Nuclear Regulatory
gr Arizona Nuclear Power Project P.O. BOX 52034
Commission
~
ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Reference:
PHOENIX. ARIZONAI5072-%34
Letter from G.P.Yuhas, Chief, Emergency Preparedness
~
and Radiological
0
Protection
(.l. f t 102-01069-DBK/TDS7kf!kC December 19, 1988 U.
Branch, U.S.Nuclear Regulatory
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:
Commission
Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555
to Arizona Nuclear Power Project, Attn.D.B.Karner, Executive Vice President, dated December 2, 1988.Dear Sir: Subject: Palo Verde Nuclear Generating
 
Station Units 1, 2 and 3 Docket No.STN 50-528 (License No.NPF-41)STN 50-529 (License No.NPF-51 STN 50-530 (License No.NPF-74)Reply to a Notice of.Violation-528/88-40-01
==Reference:==
File: 88-056-026
Letter from G.
S This letter is provided in response to the routine inspection
P.
conducted by Hr.G.Cicotte from October 31 through November 4, 19&8.Based upon the results of this inspection
Yuhas, Chief, Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection
a violation of NRC requirements
: Branch, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Arizona Nuclear Power Project, Attn. D.
was identified.
B. Karner, Executive Vice President, dated December 2,
The violation is discussed in Appendix A of the referenced
1988.
letter.The violation and ANPP's response are provided.in the attachment
 
to this letter.If you should have any questions regarding this response, contact Hr.Timothy Shriver of my staff at (602)393-2521.DBK/TDS/KLHC/kj
==Dear Sir:==
Attachments
==Subject:==
CC: J.G.J.B.T.J.M.J.T.L.A.C.Haynes (all w/attachments)
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2 and 3
Martin Polich Davis Chan Gehr  
Docket No.
t  
STN 50-528 (License No. NPF-41)
NRC Document Control Desk Page 1 of 2 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC
STN 50-529 (License No. NPF-51 STN 50-530 (License No. NPF-74)
December 19, 1988 APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Arizona Public Service Company Palo Verde Nuclear Generating
Reply to a Notice of. Violation - 528/88-40-01 File:
Station Units 12;and 3.-Docket Hos.50-528, 50-529, 50-530 License Nos.NPF-41, 51, 74 During an inspection
88-056-026 S
conducted October 31-November 4, 1988, a violation of NRC requirements
This letter is provided in response to the routine inspection conducted by Hr.
was:identified.
G. Cicotte from October 31 through November 4, 19&8.
In accordance
Based upon the results of this inspection a violation of NRC requirements was identified.
with the"General Statement of Policy and Procedure for,4RC.-Enforcement
The violation is discussed in Appendix A of the referenced letter.
Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1988), as modified by 53 Fed.Reg.40019 (October 13, 1988), the violation is listed below: A.Technical Specification
The violation and ANPP's response are provided. in the attachment to this letter.
6.8,"Procedures
If you should have any questions regarding this response, contact Hr.
and Programs," states in part: Written procedures
Timothy Shriver of my staff at (602) 393-2521.
shall be established, implemented, and pa.i,ntained
DBK/TDS/KLHC/kj Attachments CC:
covering the...""i.Offsite Dose Calculation
J.
Manual tODCM]...." Licensee Procedure 75RP-OZ108,"Radiological
G.
Environmental
J.
Air Sample Collection," Revision 0, dated 3-4-88, states in part:  
B.
T. J.
NRC Document Control Desk Page 2 of 2 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC
M. J.
December 19, 1988 APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION (Continued)
T. L.
"1.0~Per ose 1.1 This procedure provides the requirements
A. C.
for the weekly issue and exchange of particulate
Haynes (all w/attachments)
air filters and charcoal cartridges
Martin Polich Davis Chan Gehr
as required by the ODCH and the REHP[Radiological
 
Environmental
t
Honitoring
 
Program]....""6.1.3.4 Flowmeter reading (If reading is 1.5 CFH no adjustments
NRC Document Control Desk Page 1 of 2 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Arizona Public Service Company Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 2; and 3.-
are necessary, otherwise adjust to 1.5 CFH)." Contrary to the above, at approximately
Docket Hos. 50-528, 50-529, 50-530 License Nos.
12:45 p.m.HST, on November 2, l 1988, the flowmeter for environmental
NPF-41, 51, 74 During an inspection conducted October 31 - November 4,
sampling station Nos.15 and 14a was returned to service without having been adjusted to 1.5 CFH.I This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement
: 1988, a violation of NRC requirements was:identified.
IV).  
In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for,4RC.-Enforcement Actions,"
10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C
NRC Document Control Desk Page 1 of 5 102-01069-
(1988),
DBK/TDS/KLHC
as modified by 53 Fed.
December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01
Reg.
I.REASON FOR VIOLATION On November 2, 1988, the weekly environmental
40019 (October 13, 1988), the violation is listed below:
air sampling was performed by an ANPP contract employee.The air sampling was performed using procedure 75RP-OZZ08,"Radiological
A.
Environmental
Technical Specification 6.8, "Procedures and Programs,"
Air Sample Collection", Revision 0, dated Harch 4, 1988.During the performance
states in part:
of the air sampling at predetermined
Written procedures shall be established, implemented, and pa.i,ntained covering the..."
sites 14a and 15a, the inspector observed that the flowmeter reading recorded prior to adjustments
"i.
was 2.1 CFH and 2.0 CFH respectively.
Offsite Dose Calculation Manual tODCM]...."
The individual
Licensee Procedure 75RP-OZ108, "Radiological Environmental Air Sample Collection," Revision 0, dated 3-4-88, states in part:
then adjusted the flowrate to obtain a flowmeter reading at site 14a of 2.0 CFH.As discussed in the inspection
 
report, procedure 75RP-OZZ08
NRC Document Control Desk Page 2 of 2 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION (Continued)
paragraph 6.1.3.3 states;"Flowmeter
"1.0
reading (If reading is 1.5 CFH no adjustments
~Per ose
are necessary;
: 1. 1 This procedure provides the requirements for the weekly issue and exchange of particulate air filters and charcoal cartridges as required by the ODCH and the REHP [Radiological Environmental Honitoring Program]...."
otherwise adjust to 1.5 CFH).A preliminary
"6. 1.3.4 Flowmeter reading (If reading is 1.5 CFH no adjustments are necessary, otherwise adjust to 1.5 CFH)."
evaluation
Contrary to the above, at approximately 12:45 p.m.
conducted by ANPP confirmed the inspector's
: HST, on November 2, l
observations
: 1988, the flowmeter for environmental sampling station Nos.
that the sample station flowrate was adjusted to obtain a flowmeter reading of 2.0 CFH or was left in the as found condition of 2.0 CFH.As a result, ANPP initiated an evaluation
15 and 14a was returned to service without having been adjusted to 1.5 CFH.
to determine the root cause of the deficiency
I This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement IV).
and to identify the necessary corrective
 
actions.The results of that evaluation
NRC Document Control Desk Page 1 of 5 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01 I.
are discussed in the following paragraphs.  
REASON FOR VIOLATION On November 2,
: 1988, the weekly environmental air sampling was performed by an ANPP contract employee.
NRC Document Control Desk 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC
The air sampling was performed using procedure 75RP-OZZ08, "Radiological Environmental Air Sample Collection", Revision 0, dated Harch 4, 1988.
December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01
During the performance of the air sampling at predetermined sites 14a and
.....Prior.
: 15a, the inspector observed that the flowmeter reading recorded prior to adjustments was
to November, 1987 the contractor
: 2. 1 CFH and 2.0 CFH respectively.
had been supplied flowmeters, used to verify/adjust
The individual then adjusted the flowrate to obtain a flowmeter reading at site 14a of 2.0 CFH.
the flowrates at the various sampling sites, which measured air flow on a percentage
As discussed in the inspection report, procedure 75RP-OZZ08 paragraph 6.1.3.3 states; "Flowmeter reading (If reading is 1.5 CFH no adjustments are necessary; otherwise adjust to 1.5 CFH).
scale.The scale range is 0-100%with 100%equaling 2.5 CFH+5%.In November;1987 the contractor
A preliminary evaluation conducted by ANPP confirmed the inspector's observations that the sample station flowrate was adjusted to obtain a
was supplied replacement
flowmeter reading of 2.0 CFH or was left in the as found condition of 2.0 CFH.
meters which could be permanently
As a result, ANPP initiated an evaluation to determine the root cause of the deficiency and to identify the necessary corrective actions.
installed at the collection
The results of that evaluation are discussed in the following paragraphs.
sites.The replacement
 
meters measured air flow on a scale ranging from 0-6 CFH+10%.The contractor
NRC Document Control Desk 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01
independently
.....Prior. to November, 1987 the contractor had been supplied flowmeters, used to verify/adjust the flowrates at the various sampling sites, which measured air flow on a percentage scale.
evaluated the two devices and determined
The scale range is 0-100% with 100% equaling 2.5 CFH +5%.
that a reading of 2.0 CFH on the replacement
In November; 1987 the contractor was supplied replacement meters which could be permanently installed at the collection sites.
meter equated to a reading of 60%on the original meter and would therefore provide a true measurement
The replacement meters measured air flow on a scale ranging from 0-6 CFH +10%.
of 1.5 CFH.The procedural
The contractor independently evaluated the two devices and determined that a reading of 2.0 CFH on the replacement meter equated to a reading of 60% on the original meter and would therefore provide a true measurement of 1.5 CFH.
controls, as previously
The procedural
discussed, were revised to address the~replacement:
: controls, as previously discussed, were revised to address the
meters and-required, the air flow to be adjusted to obtain a meter reading of 1.5 CFH.The intent of the procedure was to ensure a sample flow rate through the'collection
~
equipment'I of 1.5 CFH.Therefore, based upon the unapproved
replacement: meters and-required, the air flow to be adjusted to obtain a meter reading of 1.5 CFH.
evaluation, the contractor
The intent of the procedure was to ensure a sample flow rate through the'collection equipment
utilized a flowmeter reading of 2.0 to adjust the sampling site flowrates.
'I of 1.5 CFH.
This decision was discussed with and , concurred with by an ANPP representative.
Therefore, based upon the unapproved evaluation, the contractor utilized a flowmeter reading of 2.0 to adjust the sampling site flowrates.
Based upon these events, the"root causes" of the identified
This decision was discussed with and
violation are the failure of the contract organization
, concurred with by an ANPP representative.
to adhere to established
Based upon these
procedural
: events, the "root causes" of the identified violation are the failure of the contract organization to adhere to established procedural controls and the failure of the ANPP representative to initiate the required evaluations and procedural changes that would have authorized the contractor's actions.
controls and the failure of the ANPP representative
 
to initiate the required evaluations
NRC Document Control Desk 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40>>01 II.
and procedural
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN AND RESULTS ACHIEVED As an immediate corrective action, an evaluation was performed to determine the effect of using 2.0 CFH vice the required 1.5 CFH flowrate.
changes that would have authorized
The difference in the calculated activity results is approximately 25 percent in the conservative direction.
the contractor's
Additionally, the original flowmeters which were utilized by the contractor have been returned to the contractor for use.
actions.  
The meters'alibration stickers have been specifically annotated that a
100% scale reading equates to a 2.5 CFH flowrate.
NRC Document Control Desk 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC
A change has been approved to the governing procedure, 75RP-OZZ08, clarifying the readings required to obtain the appropriate flowrate.
December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40>>01
III.
II.CORRECTIVE
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN TO AVOID FURTHER VIOLATIONS To address the fact that the contract individual believed he could deviate from established procedural controls based upon an unapproved technical justification, a letter was issued to the contractor from-ANPP on November 10, 1988.
ACTIONS TAKEN AND RESULTS ACHIEVED As an immediate corrective
The letter informed the contractor of this event and emphasized that any deviation from procedural controls was unacceptable.
action, an evaluation
The letter also provided instructions that whenever an individual performing a procedure has a question or concern regarding the procedure's
was performed to determine the effect of using 2.0 CFH vice the required 1.5 CFH flowrate.The difference
: adequacy, technical
in the calculated
: accuracy, or requirements he shall stop the activity and resolve the matter with ANPP management prior to
activity results is approximately
 
25 percent in the conservative
NRC Document Control Desk 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLMC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-0l proceeding, ANPP has requested that the contractor brief the responsible personnel to ensure they understand and comply with these instructions.
direction.
In addition, a meeting was held by ANPP on December 1,
Additionally, the original flowmeters
1988 with the re'sponsible contract personnel to reinforce the ANPP requirements for procedural compliance.
which were utilized by the contractor
As an additional corrective action, ANPP has evaluated the other ANPP procedures utilized by the contractor to implement the REHP.
have been returned to the contractor
The evaluation identified no technical deficiencies.
for use.The meters'alibration
The ANPP representative who was made aware of the procedural deviation by the contractor and failed to..take appropriate action has been counseled.
stickers have been specifically
Based upon the individual's previous performance, no additional actions are deemed necessary at this time.
annotated that a 100%scale reading equates to a 2.5 CFH flowrate.A change has been approved to the governing procedure, 75RP-OZZ08, clarifying
However, the Radiation Protection Standards section responsible for the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REHP) will be briefed on the necessity to properly overview a contractor's performance and to conduct a careful review of the documentation submitted by the contractor placing particular emphasis on ensuring procedural compliance.
the readings required to obtain the appropriate
IV.
flowrate.I I I.CORRECTIVE
DATE WHEN FULL COMPLIANCE WILL BE ACHIEVED All the corrective actions stated in Sections II and III have been implemented with the exception of the briefings to be given to the contract personnel and the Radiation Protection Standards section
ACTIONS TAKEN TO AVOID FURTHER VIOLATIONS
 
To address the fact that the contract individual
t 1
believed he could deviate from established
 
procedural
NRC Document Control Desk Page 5 of 5 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01 personnel responsible for the implementation of the RENP.
controls based upon an unapproved
ANPP estimates the completion of these briefings by February 1989.
technical justification, a letter was issued to the contractor
 
from-ANPP on November 10, 1988.The letter informed the contractor
C
of this event and emphasized
(
that any deviation from procedural
L Qj H
controls was unacceptable.
r t
The letter also provided instructions
f,
that whenever an individual
 
performing
.; gCcp~~TH)
a procedure has a question or concern regarding the procedure's
adequacy, technical accuracy, or requirements
he shall stop the activity and resolve the matter with ANPP management
prior to  
NRC Document Control Desk 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLMC
December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-0l
proceeding, ANPP has requested that the contractor
brief the responsible
personnel to ensure they understand
and comply with these instructions.
In addition, a meeting was held by ANPP on December 1, 1988 with the re'sponsible
contract personnel to reinforce the ANPP requirements
for procedural
compliance.
As an additional
corrective
action, ANPP has evaluated the other ANPP procedures
utilized by the contractor
to implement the REHP.The evaluation
identified
no technical deficiencies.
The ANPP representative
who was made aware of the procedural
deviation by the contractor
and failed to..take appropriate
action has been counseled.
Based upon the individual's
previous performance, no additional
actions are deemed necessary at this time.However, the Radiation Protection
Standards section responsible
for the Radiological
Environmental
Monitoring
Program (REHP)will be briefed on the necessity to properly overview a contractor's
performance
and to conduct a careful review of the documentation
submitted by the contractor
placing particular
emphasis on ensuring procedural
compliance.
IV.DATE WHEN FULL COMPLIANCE
WILL BE ACHIEVED All the corrective
actions stated in Sections II and III have been implemented
with the exception of the briefings to be given to the contract personnel and the Radiation Protection
Standards section  
t!'1  
NRC Document Control Desk Page 5 of 5 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC
December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01
personnel responsible
for the implementation
of the RENP.ANPP estimates the completion
of these briefings by February 1989.  
C (L Qj H r t f,  
.;gCcp~~TH)DISTRIBUTION.DEMOYSTRXTION
SYSTEM>j I REGULATORY
INFORMATION
DISTRIBUTION
DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM (RIDS)ESSION NBR:8901050059
.DEMOYSTRXTION SYSTEM
DOC.DATE: 88/12/19 NOTARIZED:
>j I
NO DOCKET CIL:STN-50-528
REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)
Palo Verde Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Arizona Publi 05000528 AUTH.NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION
ESSION NBR:8901050059 DOC.DATE: 88/12/19 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET CIL:STN-50-528 Palo Verde Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Arizona Publi 05000528 AUTH.NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION KARNER,D.B.
KARNER,D.B.
Arizona Nuclear Power Project (formerly Arizona Public Serv RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION Document Control Branch (Document Control Desk)
Arizona Nuclear Power Project (formerly Arizona Public Serv RECIP.NAME
R
RECIPIENT AFFILIATION
 
Document Control Branch (Document Control Desk)R SUBJECT: Responds to violations
==SUBJECT:==
noted in Insp Rept 50-528/88-40
Responds to violations noted in Insp Rept 50-528/88-40 on 881031-1104.
on 881031-1104.
I DISTRIBUTION CODE:
I DISTRIBUTION
IE06D COPIES RECEIVED:LTR ENCL SIZE:
CODE: IE06D COPIES RECEIVED:LTR
D TITLE: Environ
ENCL SIZE: D TITLE: Environ&Radiological
& Radiological (50 DKT)-Znsp Rept/Notice of Violation Respons NOTES:Standardized plant.
(50 DKT)-Znsp Rept/Notice
05000528 8 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD5 LA CHAN,T INTERNAL: ACRS NMSS/LLOB 5E4 NRR/DLPQ/PEB 11 NRR/DREP/EPB 10
of Violation Respons NOTES:Standardized
'RR/PMAS/ILRB12 OGC/HDS 1 RES RGN2/DRSS/EPRPB E
plant.05000528 8 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD5 LA CHAN,T INTERNAL: ACRS NMSS/LLOB 5E4 NRR/DLPQ/PEB
ERNAL: LPDR NSIC NOTES:
11 NRR/DREP/EPB
COPIES LTTR ENCL 1
10'RR/PMAS/ILRB12
0 1
OGC/HDS 1 RES RGN2/DRSS/EPRPB
1 2
E ERNAL: LPDR NSIC NOTES: COPIES LTTR ENCL 1 0 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD5 PD DAVIS,M AEOD/DSP NMSS/SGOB 4E4 NRR/DOEA/EAB
2 1
11 NRR/DREP/RPB
1 1
10 NUDO~S=A TRACT~ERGŽ02 KGE5 FILE 01 RGN4 MURRAY, B NRC PDR RESL MARTIN,D COPIES LTTR ENCL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NOXE TO ALL''RZDS" RECZPZENIS
1 1
PIZASE HELP US TO REDUCE TQLSTH CONIACT IHE DOCUMENI CONIBOL DESKF RXM.Pl-37 (EXT.20079)1O ELZK2VLER YOUR NAME PRQH DZSTIKBVTZGN
1 1
LISTS H)R DOCUMENIS YOU DONFT HEEDs D S TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: LTTR 27 ENCL 26  
1 1
gt  
1 1
OONALO B.KARNER EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT Arizona Nuclear Power Project P.O.BOX 52034~PHOENIX.ARIZONA 85072-2034
1 1
102-01069-DBK/TDS/KL'HC
1 1
December 19, 1988 U.S.Nuclear Regulatory
1 1
Commission
1 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD5 PD DAVIS,M AEOD/DSP NMSS/SGOB 4E4 NRR/DOEA/EAB 11 NRR/DREP/RPB 10 NUDO~S=A TRACT
ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Reference:
~ERG' 02 KGE5 FILE 01 RGN4 MURRAY,B NRC PDR RESL MARTIN,D COPIES LTTR ENCL 1
Letter from G.P.Yuhas, Chief, Emergency Preparedness
1 1
and Radiological
1 1
Protection
1 1
Branch, U.S.Nuclear Regulatory
1 1
Commission
1 2
to Arizona Nuclear Power Project, Attn.D.B.Karner, Executive Vice President, dated December 2, 1988.Dear Sir: 0 Subject: Palo Verde Nuclear Generating
2.
Station Units 1, 2 and 3 Docket No.STN 50-528 (License No.NPF-41)STN 50-529 (License No.NPF-51)STN 50-530 (License No.NPF-74)Reply to a Notice of Violation-528/88-40-01
1 1
File: 88-056-026
1 1
This letter is provided in response to the routine inspection
1 1
conducted by Hr.G..Cicotte from October 31 through November 4, 1988.Based upon the results of this inspection
1 1
a violation of NRC requirements
1 1
was identified.
1 1
The violation is discussed in Appendix A of the referenced
NOXE TO ALL ''RZDS" RECZPZENIS PIZASE HELP US TO REDUCE TQLSTH CONIACT IHE DOCUMENI CONIBOL DESKF RXM. Pl-37 (EXT. 20079) 1O ELZK2VLER YOUR NAME PRQH DZSTIKBVTZGN LISTS H)R DOCUMENIS YOU DONFT HEEDs D
letter.The violation and ANPP's response are provided in the attachment
S TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:
to this letter.If you should have any questions regarding this response, contact Hr.Timothy Shriver of my staff at (602)393-2521.DBK/TDS/KLHC/kj
LTTR 27 ENCL 26
Attachments
 
CC: J.G.Haynes J.B.Hartin T.J.Polich H.J.'Davis T.L.Chan A.C.Gehr (all w/attachments)
gt
~Ho pqoi050~5 0'500052~a:="1219 QQQCK poc 0  
 
1 i  
OONALO B. KARNER EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT Arizona Nuclear Power Project P.O. BOX 52034
NRC Document Control Desk Page 1 of 2 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLMC
~
December.19, 1988 APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Arizona Public Service Company Palo Verde Nuclear Generating
PHOENIX. ARIZONA85072-2034 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KL'HC December 19, 1988 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:
Station Units 1, 2, and 3 Docket Nos.50-528, 50-529, 50-530 License Nos.NPF-41, 51, 74 During an inspection
Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555
conducted October 31-November 4, 1988, a violation of NRC requirements
 
was identified.
==Reference:==
In accordance
Letter from G.
with the"General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement
P.
Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1988), as modified by 53 Fed.Reg.40019 (October 13, 1988), the violation is listed below: A.Technical Specification
Yuhas, Chief, Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection
6.8,"Procedures
: Branch, U.
and Programs," states in part: "6.8.1 Written procedures
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Arizona Nuclear Power Project, Attn. D.
shall be established, implemented, and maintained
B. Karner, Executive Vice President, dated December 2,
covering the...""i.Offsite Dose Calculation
1988.
Manual[ODCM]...." Licensee Procedure 75RP-OZZ08,"Radiological
 
Environmental
==Dear Sir:==
Air Sample Collection," Revision 0, dated 3-4-88, states in part:  
0
i l I I  
 
NRC Document Control Desk Page 2 of 2 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLMC
==Subject:==
December 19, 1988 APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION (Continued)
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2 and 3
"1.0~Por ose 1.1 This procedure provides the requirements
Docket No.
for the weekly issue and exchange of particulate
STN 50-528 (License No. NPF-41)
air filters and charcoal cartridges
STN 50-529 (License No. NPF-51)
as required by the ODCM and the REHP I'Radiological
STN 50-530 (License No. NPF-74)
Environmental
Reply to a Notice of Violation - 528/88-40-01 File:
Monitoring
88-056-026 This letter is provided in response to the routine inspection conducted by Hr.
Program]....""6.1.3.4 Flowmeter reading (If reading is 1.5 CFH no adjustments
G.. Cicotte from October 31 through November 4, 1988.
are necessary, otherwise'adjust to 1.5 CFH).." Contrary to the above, at approximately
Based upon the results of this inspection a violation of NRC requirements was identified.
12:45 p.m.HST, on November 2, 1988, the flowmeter for environmental
The violation is discussed in Appendix A of the referenced letter.
sampling station Nos.15 and 14a was returned to service without having been adjusted to 1.5 CFH.This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement
The violation and ANPP's response are provided in the attachment to this letter.
IV).f 4'I''I~f'lo s'', y r PAN A Q'H le~  
If you should have any questions regarding this response, contact Hr.
i  
Timothy Shriver of my staff at (602) 393-2521.
NRC Document Control Desk Page 1 of 5 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC
DBK/TDS/KLHC/kj Attachments CC:
December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01
J.
I.REASON FOR VIOLATION On November 2, 1988, the weekly environmental
G.
air sampling was performed by an ANPP contract employee.The air sampling was performed using procedure 75RP-OZZ08,"Radiological
Haynes J.
Environmental
B. Hartin T. J. Polich H. J.'Davis T. L. Chan A. C. Gehr (all w/attachments)
Air Sample Collection", Revision 0, dated March 4, 1988.During the performance
~Ho pqoi050~5 0'500052~
of the air sampling at predetermined
a:="1219 QQQCK poc 0
sites 14a and 15a, the inspector observed that the flowmeter reading recorded prior to adjustments
 
was 2.1 CFH and 2.0 CFH respectively.
1 i
The individual
 
then adjusted the flowrate to obtain a flowmeter reading at site 14a of 2.0 CFH.As discussed in the inspection
NRC Document Control Desk Page 1 of 2 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLMC December.
report, procedure 75RP-OZZ08
19, 1988 APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Arizona Public Service Company Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2, and 3
paragraph 6.1.3.3 states;"Flowmeter
Docket Nos. 50-528, 50-529, 50-530 License Nos.
reading (If reading is 1.5 CFH no adjustments
NPF-41, 51, 74 During an inspection conducted October 31 - November 4,
are necessary;
: 1988, a violation of NRC requirements was identified.
otherwise adjust to 1.5 CFH).A preliminary
In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"
evaluation
10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C
conducted by ANPP confirmed the inspector's
(1988),
observations
as modified by 53 Fed.
that the sample station flowrate was adjusted to obtain a flowmeter reading of 2.0 CFM or was left in the as found condition of 2.0 CFM.As a result>ANPP initiated an evaluation
Reg.
to determine the root cause of the deficiency
40019 (October 13, 1988),
and to identify the necessary corrective
the violation is listed below:
actions.The results of that evaluation
A.
are discussed in the'following
Technical Specification 6.8, "Procedures and Programs,"
paragraphs.  
states in part:
"6.8.1 Written procedures shall be established, implemented, and maintained covering the..."
(l'RC Document Control Desk Page 2 of 5 ,102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC
"i.
December 19, 1988 e REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01
Offsite Dose Calculation Manual
Prior to November, 1987 the contractor
[ODCM]...."
had been supplied flowmeters, used to verify/adjust
Licensee Procedure 75RP-OZZ08, "Radiological Environmental Air Sample Collection," Revision 0, dated 3-4-88, states in part:
the flowrates at the various sampling sites, which measured air flow on a percentage
 
scale.The scale range is 0-100%with 100%equaling 2.5 CFH+5%.In November, 1987 the contractor
i l
was supplied replacement
I I
meters which could be permanently
 
installed at the collection
NRC Document Control Desk Page 2 of 2 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLMC December 19, 1988 APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION (Continued)
sites.The replacement
"1.0
meters measured air flow on a'cale ranging from 0-6 CFH+10%.The contractor
~Por ose
independently
: 1. 1 This procedure provides the requirements for the weekly issue and exchange of particulate air filters and charcoal cartridges as required by the ODCM and the REHP I'Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program]...."
evaluated the two devices and determined
"6.1.3.4 Flowmeter reading (If reading is 1.5 CFH no adjustments are necessary, otherwise 'adjust to 1.5 CFH).."
that a reading of 2.0 CFH on the replacement
Contrary to the above, at approximately 12:45 p.m.
meter equated'o a reading of 60%on the original meter.and would therefore provide a true measurement
: HST, on November 2,
of 1.5 CFH.The procedural
: 1988, the flowmeter for environmental sampling station Nos.
controls, as previously
15 and 14a was returned to service without having been adjusted to 1.5 CFH.
discussed, were revised to address the replacement
This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement IV).
meters and required the air flow to be adjusted to obtain a meter reading of 1.5 CFH.The intent of the procedure was to ensure a sample flow rate through the collection
f 4
equipment of 1.5 CFH.Therefore, based upon the unapproved
I
evaluation, the contractor
'I ~ f 'lo s'
utilized a flowmeter reading of.2.0 to adjust the sampling site flowrates.
y r PAN A Q
'H le
~
 
i
 
NRC Document Control Desk Page 1 of 5 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01 I.
REASON FOR VIOLATION On November 2, 1988, the weekly environmental air sampling was performed by an ANPP contract employee.
The air sampling was performed using procedure 75RP-OZZ08, "Radiological Environmental Air Sample Collection", Revision 0, dated March 4, 1988.
During the performance of the air sampling at predetermined sites 14a and
: 15a, the inspector observed that the flowmeter reading recorded prior to adjustments was
: 2. 1 CFH and 2.0 CFH respectively.
The individual then adjusted the flowrate to obtain a flowmeter reading at site 14a of 2.0 CFH.
As discussed in the inspection report, procedure 75RP-OZZ08 paragraph 6.1.3.3 states; "Flowmeter reading (If reading is 1.5 CFH no adjustments are necessary; otherwise adjust to 1.5 CFH).
A preliminary evaluation conducted by ANPP confirmed the inspector's observations that the sample station flowrate was adjusted to obtain a
flowmeter reading of 2.0 CFM or was left in the as found condition of 2.0 CFM.
As a result>
ANPP initiated an evaluation to determine the root cause of the deficiency and to identify the necessary corrective actions.
The results of that evaluation are discussed in the 'following paragraphs.
 
(l 'RC Document Control Desk Page 2 of 5
,102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 e
REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01 Prior to November, 1987 the contractor had been supplied flowmeters, used to verify/adjust the flowrates at the various sampling sites, which measured air flow on a percentage scale.
The scale range is 0-100% with 100% equaling 2.5 CFH +5%.
In
: November, 1987 the contractor was supplied replacement meters which could be permanently installed at the collection sites.
The replacement meters measured air flow on a'cale ranging from 0-6 CFH +10%.
The contractor independently evaluated the two devices and determined that a reading of 2.0 CFH on the replacement meter equated'o a reading of 60% on the original meter. and would therefore provide a true measurement of 1.5 CFH.
The procedural
: controls, as previously discussed, were revised to address the replacement meters and required the air flow to be adjusted to obtain a meter reading of 1.5 CFH.
The intent of the procedure was to ensure a sample flow rate through the collection equipment of 1.5 CFH.
Therefore, based upon the unapproved evaluation, the contractor utilized a flowmeter reading of.2.0 to adjust the sampling site flowrates.
This decision was discussed with and concurred with by an ANPP representative.
This decision was discussed with and concurred with by an ANPP representative.
Based upon these events, the"root causes" of the identified
Based upon these
violation are the failure of the contract organization
: events, the "root causes" of the identified violation are the failure of the contract organization to adhere to established procedural controls and the failure of the ANPP representative to initiate the required evaluations and procedural changes that would have authorized the contractor's actions.
to adhere to established
 
procedural
NRC Document Control Desk Page 3 of 5 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01 II.
controls and the failure of the ANPP representative
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN AND RESULTS ACHIEVED As an immediate corrective action, an evaluation was performed to determine the effect of using 2.0 CFH vice the required 1.5 CFH flowrate.
to initiate the required evaluations
The difference in the calculated activity results is approximately 25 percent in the conservative direction.
and procedural
Additionally, the original flowmeters which were utilized by the contractor have been returned to the contractor for use.
changes that would have authorized
The meters' calibration stickers have been specifically annotated that a
the contractor's
100% scale reading equates to a 2.5 CFH flowrate.
actions.  
A change has been ap>roved to the governing procedure, 75RP-OZZ08, clarifying the readings required to obtain tPe appropriate flowrate.
I II.
NRC Document Control Desk Page 3 of 5 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN TO AVOID FURTHER VIOLATIONS To address the fact that the contract individual believed he could 0
December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01
deviate from established procedural controls based upon an unapproved technical justification, a letter was issued to the contractor from ANPP on November 10, 1988.
II.CORRECTIVE
The letter informed the contractor of this event and emphasized that any deviation from procedural controls was unacceptable.
ACTIONS TAKEN AND RESULTS ACHIEVED As an immediate corrective
The letter also provided instructions that whenever an individual performing a procedure has a question or concern regarding the procedure's
action, an evaluation
: adequacy, technical
was performed to determine the effect of using 2.0 CFH vice the required 1.5 CFH flowrate.The difference
: accuracy, or requirements he shall stop the activity and resolve the matter with ANPP management prior to
in the calculated
 
activity results is approximately
HRC Document Control Desk Page 4 of 5 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLMC December 19, 1988 REPLY T'0 NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01 proceeding.
25 percent in the conservative
ANPP has requested that the contractor brief the responsible personnel to ensure they understand and comply with these instructions.
direction.
In addition, a meeting was held by ANPP on December 1,
Additionally, the original flowmeters
1988 with the responsible contract personnel to reinforce the ANPP requirements for procedural compliance.
which were utilized by the contractor
As an additional corrective action, ANPP has evaluated the other ANPP procedures utilized by the contractor to implement the REMP.
have been returned to the contractor
'The evaluation identified no technical deficiencies.
for use.The meters'calibration
The ANPP representative who was made aware of the procedural deviation I
stickers have been specifically
by the contractor and fai'led to take appropriate action has been counseled.
annotated that a 100%scale reading equates to a 2.5 CFH flowrate.A change has been ap>roved to the governing procedure, 75RP-OZZ08, clarifying
Based upon the individual's previous performance, no additional actions are deemed necessary at this time.
the readings required to obtain tPe appropriate
However, the Radiation Protection Standards section responsible for the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) will be briefed on the necessity to properly overview a contractor's performance and to conduct a careful review of the documentation submitted by the contractor placing particular emphas'is on ensuring procedural compliance.
flowrate.I I I.CORRECTIVE
IV.
ACTIONS TAKEN TO AVOID FURTHER VIOLATIONS
DATE WHEN FULL COMPLIANCE WILL BE ACHIEVED All the 'corrective actions stated in Sections II and III have been implemented with the exception of the briefings to be given to the contract personnel and the Radiation Protection Standards section
To address the fact that the contract individual
 
believed he could 0 deviate from established
IJ
procedural
~
controls based upon an unapproved
 
technical justification, a letter was issued to the contractor
5RC Document Control Desk Page 5 of 5 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01 personnel responsible for the implementation of the REHP.
from ANPP on November 10, 1988.The letter informed the contractor
ANPP estimates the completion of these briefings by February 1989.}}
of this event and emphasized
that any deviation from procedural
controls was unacceptable.
The letter also provided instructions
that whenever an individual
performing
a procedure has a question or concern regarding the procedure's
adequacy, technical accuracy, or requirements
he shall stop the activity and resolve the matter with ANPP management
prior to  
HRC Document Control Desk Page 4 of 5 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLMC
December 19, 1988 REPLY T'0 NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01
proceeding.
ANPP has requested that the contractor
brief the responsible
personnel to ensure they understand
and comply with these instructions.
In addition, a meeting was held by ANPP on December 1, 1988 with the responsible
contract personnel to reinforce the ANPP requirements
for procedural
compliance.
As an additional
corrective
action, ANPP has evaluated the other ANPP procedures
utilized by the contractor
to implement the REMP.'The evaluation
identified
no technical deficiencies.
The ANPP representative
who was made aware of the procedural
deviation I by the contractor
and fai'led to take appropriate
action has been counseled.
Based upon the individual's
previous performance, no additional
actions are deemed necessary at this time.However, the Radiation Protection
Standards section responsible
for the Radiological
Environmental
Monitoring
Program (REMP)will be briefed on the necessity to properly overview a contractor's
performance
and to conduct a careful review of the documentation
submitted by the contractor
placing particular
emphas'is on ensuring procedural
compliance.
IV.DATE WHEN FULL COMPLIANCE
WILL BE ACHIEVED All the'corrective
actions stated in Sections II and III have been implemented
with the exception of the briefings to be given to the contract personnel and the Radiation Protection
Standards section  
IJ~  
5RC Document Control Desk Page 5 of 5 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC
December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01
personnel responsible
for the implementation
of the REHP.ANPP estimates the completion
of these briefings by February 1989.
}}

Latest revision as of 02:44, 8 January 2025

Responds to Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-528/88-40 on 881031-1104.Corrective Actions:Original Flowmeters Returned to Contractor for Use & Ltr Sent to Contractor Informing of Employee Deviation from Procedural Controls
ML17304A839
Person / Time
Site: Palo Verde  Arizona Public Service icon.png
Issue date: 12/19/1988
From: Karner D
ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR
To:
NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
References
102-01069-DBK-T, 102-1069-DBK-T, NUDOCS 8901050059
Download: ML17304A839 (34)


Text

'pi DONAI.O B.KARNER EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT PiFQJQI(

gr Arizona Nuclear Power Project P.O. BOX 52034

~

PHOENIX. ARIZONAI5072-%34

~

0

(.l. f t 102-01069-DBK/TDS7kf!kC December 19, 1988 U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:

Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555

Reference:

Letter from G.

P.

Yuhas, Chief, Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection

Branch, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Arizona Nuclear Power Project, Attn. D.

B. Karner, Executive Vice President, dated December 2,

1988.

Dear Sir:

Subject:

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2 and 3

Docket No.

STN 50-528 (License No. NPF-41)

STN 50-529 (License No. NPF-51 STN 50-530 (License No. NPF-74)

Reply to a Notice of. Violation - 528/88-40-01 File:

88-056-026 S

This letter is provided in response to the routine inspection conducted by Hr.

G. Cicotte from October 31 through November 4, 19&8.

Based upon the results of this inspection a violation of NRC requirements was identified.

The violation is discussed in Appendix A of the referenced letter.

The violation and ANPP's response are provided. in the attachment to this letter.

If you should have any questions regarding this response, contact Hr.

Timothy Shriver of my staff at (602) 393-2521.

DBK/TDS/KLHC/kj Attachments CC:

J.

G.

J.

B.

T. J.

M. J.

T. L.

A. C.

Haynes (all w/attachments)

Martin Polich Davis Chan Gehr

t

NRC Document Control Desk Page 1 of 2 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Arizona Public Service Company Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 2; and 3.-

Docket Hos. 50-528, 50-529, 50-530 License Nos.

NPF-41, 51, 74 During an inspection conducted October 31 - November 4,

1988, a violation of NRC requirements was:identified.

In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for,4RC.-Enforcement Actions,"

10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C

(1988),

as modified by 53 Fed.

Reg.

40019 (October 13, 1988), the violation is listed below:

A.

Technical Specification 6.8, "Procedures and Programs,"

states in part:

Written procedures shall be established, implemented, and pa.i,ntained covering the..."

"i.

Offsite Dose Calculation Manual tODCM]...."

Licensee Procedure 75RP-OZ108, "Radiological Environmental Air Sample Collection," Revision 0, dated 3-4-88, states in part:

NRC Document Control Desk Page 2 of 2 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION (Continued)

"1.0

~Per ose

1. 1 This procedure provides the requirements for the weekly issue and exchange of particulate air filters and charcoal cartridges as required by the ODCH and the REHP [Radiological Environmental Honitoring Program]...."

"6. 1.3.4 Flowmeter reading (If reading is 1.5 CFH no adjustments are necessary, otherwise adjust to 1.5 CFH)."

Contrary to the above, at approximately 12:45 p.m.

HST, on November 2, l
1988, the flowmeter for environmental sampling station Nos.

15 and 14a was returned to service without having been adjusted to 1.5 CFH.

I This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement IV).

NRC Document Control Desk Page 1 of 5 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01 I.

REASON FOR VIOLATION On November 2,

1988, the weekly environmental air sampling was performed by an ANPP contract employee.

The air sampling was performed using procedure 75RP-OZZ08, "Radiological Environmental Air Sample Collection", Revision 0, dated Harch 4, 1988.

During the performance of the air sampling at predetermined sites 14a and

15a, the inspector observed that the flowmeter reading recorded prior to adjustments was
2. 1 CFH and 2.0 CFH respectively.

The individual then adjusted the flowrate to obtain a flowmeter reading at site 14a of 2.0 CFH.

As discussed in the inspection report, procedure 75RP-OZZ08 paragraph 6.1.3.3 states; "Flowmeter reading (If reading is 1.5 CFH no adjustments are necessary; otherwise adjust to 1.5 CFH).

A preliminary evaluation conducted by ANPP confirmed the inspector's observations that the sample station flowrate was adjusted to obtain a

flowmeter reading of 2.0 CFH or was left in the as found condition of 2.0 CFH.

As a result, ANPP initiated an evaluation to determine the root cause of the deficiency and to identify the necessary corrective actions.

The results of that evaluation are discussed in the following paragraphs.

NRC Document Control Desk 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01

.....Prior. to November, 1987 the contractor had been supplied flowmeters, used to verify/adjust the flowrates at the various sampling sites, which measured air flow on a percentage scale.

The scale range is 0-100% with 100% equaling 2.5 CFH +5%.

In November; 1987 the contractor was supplied replacement meters which could be permanently installed at the collection sites.

The replacement meters measured air flow on a scale ranging from 0-6 CFH +10%.

The contractor independently evaluated the two devices and determined that a reading of 2.0 CFH on the replacement meter equated to a reading of 60% on the original meter and would therefore provide a true measurement of 1.5 CFH.

The procedural

controls, as previously discussed, were revised to address the

~

replacement: meters and-required, the air flow to be adjusted to obtain a meter reading of 1.5 CFH.

The intent of the procedure was to ensure a sample flow rate through the'collection equipment

'I of 1.5 CFH.

Therefore, based upon the unapproved evaluation, the contractor utilized a flowmeter reading of 2.0 to adjust the sampling site flowrates.

This decision was discussed with and

, concurred with by an ANPP representative.

Based upon these

events, the "root causes" of the identified violation are the failure of the contract organization to adhere to established procedural controls and the failure of the ANPP representative to initiate the required evaluations and procedural changes that would have authorized the contractor's actions.

NRC Document Control Desk 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40>>01 II.

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN AND RESULTS ACHIEVED As an immediate corrective action, an evaluation was performed to determine the effect of using 2.0 CFH vice the required 1.5 CFH flowrate.

The difference in the calculated activity results is approximately 25 percent in the conservative direction.

Additionally, the original flowmeters which were utilized by the contractor have been returned to the contractor for use.

The meters'alibration stickers have been specifically annotated that a

100% scale reading equates to a 2.5 CFH flowrate.

A change has been approved to the governing procedure, 75RP-OZZ08, clarifying the readings required to obtain the appropriate flowrate.

III.

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN TO AVOID FURTHER VIOLATIONS To address the fact that the contract individual believed he could deviate from established procedural controls based upon an unapproved technical justification, a letter was issued to the contractor from-ANPP on November 10, 1988.

The letter informed the contractor of this event and emphasized that any deviation from procedural controls was unacceptable.

The letter also provided instructions that whenever an individual performing a procedure has a question or concern regarding the procedure's

adequacy, technical
accuracy, or requirements he shall stop the activity and resolve the matter with ANPP management prior to

NRC Document Control Desk 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLMC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-0l proceeding, ANPP has requested that the contractor brief the responsible personnel to ensure they understand and comply with these instructions.

In addition, a meeting was held by ANPP on December 1,

1988 with the re'sponsible contract personnel to reinforce the ANPP requirements for procedural compliance.

As an additional corrective action, ANPP has evaluated the other ANPP procedures utilized by the contractor to implement the REHP.

The evaluation identified no technical deficiencies.

The ANPP representative who was made aware of the procedural deviation by the contractor and failed to..take appropriate action has been counseled.

Based upon the individual's previous performance, no additional actions are deemed necessary at this time.

However, the Radiation Protection Standards section responsible for the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REHP) will be briefed on the necessity to properly overview a contractor's performance and to conduct a careful review of the documentation submitted by the contractor placing particular emphasis on ensuring procedural compliance.

IV.

DATE WHEN FULL COMPLIANCE WILL BE ACHIEVED All the corrective actions stated in Sections II and III have been implemented with the exception of the briefings to be given to the contract personnel and the Radiation Protection Standards section

t 1

NRC Document Control Desk Page 5 of 5 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01 personnel responsible for the implementation of the RENP.

ANPP estimates the completion of these briefings by February 1989.

C

(

L Qj H

r t

f,

.; gCcp~~TH)

DISTRIBUTION

.DEMOYSTRXTION SYSTEM

>j I

REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)

ESSION NBR:8901050059 DOC.DATE: 88/12/19 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET CIL:STN-50-528 Palo Verde Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Arizona Publi 05000528 AUTH.NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION KARNER,D.B.

Arizona Nuclear Power Project (formerly Arizona Public Serv RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION Document Control Branch (Document Control Desk)

R

SUBJECT:

Responds to violations noted in Insp Rept 50-528/88-40 on 881031-1104.

I DISTRIBUTION CODE:

IE06D COPIES RECEIVED:LTR ENCL SIZE:

D TITLE: Environ

& Radiological (50 DKT)-Znsp Rept/Notice of Violation Respons NOTES:Standardized plant.

05000528 8 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD5 LA CHAN,T INTERNAL: ACRS NMSS/LLOB 5E4 NRR/DLPQ/PEB 11 NRR/DREP/EPB 10

'RR/PMAS/ILRB12 OGC/HDS 1 RES RGN2/DRSS/EPRPB E

ERNAL: LPDR NSIC NOTES:

COPIES LTTR ENCL 1

0 1

1 2

2 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD5 PD DAVIS,M AEOD/DSP NMSS/SGOB 4E4 NRR/DOEA/EAB 11 NRR/DREP/RPB 10 NUDO~S=A TRACT

~ERG' 02 KGE5 FILE 01 RGN4 MURRAY,B NRC PDR RESL MARTIN,D COPIES LTTR ENCL 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 2

2.

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

NOXE TO ALL RZDS" RECZPZENIS PIZASE HELP US TO REDUCE TQLSTH CONIACT IHE DOCUMENI CONIBOL DESKF RXM. Pl-37 (EXT. 20079) 1O ELZK2VLER YOUR NAME PRQH DZSTIKBVTZGN LISTS H)R DOCUMENIS YOU DONFT HEEDs D

S TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:

LTTR 27 ENCL 26

gt

OONALO B. KARNER EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT Arizona Nuclear Power Project P.O. BOX 52034

~

PHOENIX. ARIZONA85072-2034 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KL'HC December 19, 1988 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:

Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555

Reference:

Letter from G.

P.

Yuhas, Chief, Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection

Branch, U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Arizona Nuclear Power Project, Attn. D.

B. Karner, Executive Vice President, dated December 2,

1988.

Dear Sir:

0

Subject:

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2 and 3

Docket No.

STN 50-528 (License No. NPF-41)

STN 50-529 (License No. NPF-51)

STN 50-530 (License No. NPF-74)

Reply to a Notice of Violation - 528/88-40-01 File:

88-056-026 This letter is provided in response to the routine inspection conducted by Hr.

G.. Cicotte from October 31 through November 4, 1988.

Based upon the results of this inspection a violation of NRC requirements was identified.

The violation is discussed in Appendix A of the referenced letter.

The violation and ANPP's response are provided in the attachment to this letter.

If you should have any questions regarding this response, contact Hr.

Timothy Shriver of my staff at (602) 393-2521.

DBK/TDS/KLHC/kj Attachments CC:

J.

G.

Haynes J.

B. Hartin T. J. Polich H. J.'Davis T. L. Chan A. C. Gehr (all w/attachments)

~Ho pqoi050~5 0'500052~

a:="1219 QQQCK poc 0

1 i

NRC Document Control Desk Page 1 of 2 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLMC December.

19, 1988 APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Arizona Public Service Company Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2, and 3

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

NPF-41, 51, 74 During an inspection conducted October 31 - November 4,

1988, a violation of NRC requirements was identified.

In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"

10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C

(1988),

as modified by 53 Fed.

Reg.

40019 (October 13, 1988),

the violation is listed below:

A.

Technical Specification 6.8, "Procedures and Programs,"

states in part:

"6.8.1 Written procedures shall be established, implemented, and maintained covering the..."

"i.

Offsite Dose Calculation Manual

[ODCM]...."

Licensee Procedure 75RP-OZZ08, "Radiological Environmental Air Sample Collection," Revision 0, dated 3-4-88, states in part:

i l

I I

NRC Document Control Desk Page 2 of 2 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLMC December 19, 1988 APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION (Continued)

"1.0

~Por ose

1. 1 This procedure provides the requirements for the weekly issue and exchange of particulate air filters and charcoal cartridges as required by the ODCM and the REHP I'Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program]...."

"6.1.3.4 Flowmeter reading (If reading is 1.5 CFH no adjustments are necessary, otherwise 'adjust to 1.5 CFH).."

Contrary to the above, at approximately 12:45 p.m.

HST, on November 2,
1988, the flowmeter for environmental sampling station Nos.

15 and 14a was returned to service without having been adjusted to 1.5 CFH.

This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement IV).

f 4

I

'I ~ f 'lo s'

y r PAN A Q

'H le

~

i

NRC Document Control Desk Page 1 of 5 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01 I.

REASON FOR VIOLATION On November 2, 1988, the weekly environmental air sampling was performed by an ANPP contract employee.

The air sampling was performed using procedure 75RP-OZZ08, "Radiological Environmental Air Sample Collection", Revision 0, dated March 4, 1988.

During the performance of the air sampling at predetermined sites 14a and

15a, the inspector observed that the flowmeter reading recorded prior to adjustments was
2. 1 CFH and 2.0 CFH respectively.

The individual then adjusted the flowrate to obtain a flowmeter reading at site 14a of 2.0 CFH.

As discussed in the inspection report, procedure 75RP-OZZ08 paragraph 6.1.3.3 states; "Flowmeter reading (If reading is 1.5 CFH no adjustments are necessary; otherwise adjust to 1.5 CFH).

A preliminary evaluation conducted by ANPP confirmed the inspector's observations that the sample station flowrate was adjusted to obtain a

flowmeter reading of 2.0 CFM or was left in the as found condition of 2.0 CFM.

As a result>

ANPP initiated an evaluation to determine the root cause of the deficiency and to identify the necessary corrective actions.

The results of that evaluation are discussed in the 'following paragraphs.

(l 'RC Document Control Desk Page 2 of 5

,102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 e

REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01 Prior to November, 1987 the contractor had been supplied flowmeters, used to verify/adjust the flowrates at the various sampling sites, which measured air flow on a percentage scale.

The scale range is 0-100% with 100% equaling 2.5 CFH +5%.

In

November, 1987 the contractor was supplied replacement meters which could be permanently installed at the collection sites.

The replacement meters measured air flow on a'cale ranging from 0-6 CFH +10%.

The contractor independently evaluated the two devices and determined that a reading of 2.0 CFH on the replacement meter equated'o a reading of 60% on the original meter. and would therefore provide a true measurement of 1.5 CFH.

The procedural

controls, as previously discussed, were revised to address the replacement meters and required the air flow to be adjusted to obtain a meter reading of 1.5 CFH.

The intent of the procedure was to ensure a sample flow rate through the collection equipment of 1.5 CFH.

Therefore, based upon the unapproved evaluation, the contractor utilized a flowmeter reading of.2.0 to adjust the sampling site flowrates.

This decision was discussed with and concurred with by an ANPP representative.

Based upon these

events, the "root causes" of the identified violation are the failure of the contract organization to adhere to established procedural controls and the failure of the ANPP representative to initiate the required evaluations and procedural changes that would have authorized the contractor's actions.

NRC Document Control Desk Page 3 of 5 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01 II.

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN AND RESULTS ACHIEVED As an immediate corrective action, an evaluation was performed to determine the effect of using 2.0 CFH vice the required 1.5 CFH flowrate.

The difference in the calculated activity results is approximately 25 percent in the conservative direction.

Additionally, the original flowmeters which were utilized by the contractor have been returned to the contractor for use.

The meters' calibration stickers have been specifically annotated that a

100% scale reading equates to a 2.5 CFH flowrate.

A change has been ap>roved to the governing procedure, 75RP-OZZ08, clarifying the readings required to obtain tPe appropriate flowrate.

I II.

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN TO AVOID FURTHER VIOLATIONS To address the fact that the contract individual believed he could 0

deviate from established procedural controls based upon an unapproved technical justification, a letter was issued to the contractor from ANPP on November 10, 1988.

The letter informed the contractor of this event and emphasized that any deviation from procedural controls was unacceptable.

The letter also provided instructions that whenever an individual performing a procedure has a question or concern regarding the procedure's

adequacy, technical
accuracy, or requirements he shall stop the activity and resolve the matter with ANPP management prior to

HRC Document Control Desk Page 4 of 5 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLMC December 19, 1988 REPLY T'0 NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01 proceeding.

ANPP has requested that the contractor brief the responsible personnel to ensure they understand and comply with these instructions.

In addition, a meeting was held by ANPP on December 1,

1988 with the responsible contract personnel to reinforce the ANPP requirements for procedural compliance.

As an additional corrective action, ANPP has evaluated the other ANPP procedures utilized by the contractor to implement the REMP.

'The evaluation identified no technical deficiencies.

The ANPP representative who was made aware of the procedural deviation I

by the contractor and fai'led to take appropriate action has been counseled.

Based upon the individual's previous performance, no additional actions are deemed necessary at this time.

However, the Radiation Protection Standards section responsible for the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) will be briefed on the necessity to properly overview a contractor's performance and to conduct a careful review of the documentation submitted by the contractor placing particular emphas'is on ensuring procedural compliance.

IV.

DATE WHEN FULL COMPLIANCE WILL BE ACHIEVED All the 'corrective actions stated in Sections II and III have been implemented with the exception of the briefings to be given to the contract personnel and the Radiation Protection Standards section

IJ

~

5RC Document Control Desk Page 5 of 5 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01 personnel responsible for the implementation of the REHP.

ANPP estimates the completion of these briefings by February 1989.