ML17304A839: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| page count = 34 | | page count = 34 | ||
}} | }} | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:'pi DONAI.O B.KARNER EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT PiFQJQI(gr Arizona Nuclear Power Project P.O.BOX 52034~PHOENIX. | {{#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. | ||
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 | 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. | ||
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 | ~ | ||
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. | 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 | |||
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 | 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 | ||
0 1 | |||
OGC/HDS 1 RES RGN2/DRSS/EPRPB | 1 2 | ||
2 1 | |||
11 NRR/DREP/RPB | 1 1 | ||
10 NUDO~S=A TRACT~ERG | 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. | 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. | ||
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 | 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 | |||
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 | 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
| ML17304A839 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde |
| 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,"
(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
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,"
(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
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.